Talk:Main Page:Archive2

Relaunch
Since the original founder has not edited since May, I have suggested to moa3333 that the site is relaunced as a more general how-to, which would provide a place for the "Wikisolutions" proposal, rather than focusing on the engineering aspect which Inyuki began here in January. Angela (talk) 22:06, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't mean that :) I forgot the project. I just didn't have an idea, how to make it sufficiently simple for many people to be able to participate without any hardship. And that is crucial for making the project popular and useful. Now you can come here every time you wander about what can something be used for, or how it can be used for it. I would like to talk with mao3333 with Google Talk or some other way more about it... --Inyuki, 07:33, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

On Further Development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moa3333#About_Wikisolutions

Summary: We should start from writing about how to use the existing tools, and only in this process go back on how to create those tools.

(I am mostly talking above about the tools used to engineer something, and that are used in engineering)

As there are many articles on programming, in programming, we are also using parts of the code as tools, we don't know how they are exactly working, and these "tools" are sometimes very valuable. I would say we start here explaining how to use these "tools", not the basics of programming something, and not storing the "tools" in here, just giving links to where they are. (I talk about the solid code, classes, and such things, as well as links where other kind of tools are in reality.)

Sometimes, of course, the tools are very complicated and multipurpose, so describing the demanding procedures, like on, might also be one of the activities...

Inyuki, 16:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells normal people about something. Each page must be comprehensible by everyone. This should be very specialised. For example, inside Python catégory you could have thinks that will never be ok for wikipedia, like details on how to do very specialised things, that only programmers can do. Into other categories you will have thinks that onlt hard-core gamers can understand, for example, a list of "free software 3D, fast-action and not-couter-strike like, but more like doom" games. In wikipedia, only a fes poeple will understand what this means. Free software, 80% willunderstand. 3D, maybe 70% (soime people think 2D games are 3D....). fast-action, only about 20% will understand. not-counter-strike like, only about 10%. Doom, only about 3%.... Finaly, only 1% of people will find such an article usefull. However a hardcore gamer, may want to find this kind of software, and most hardcore gamers know exactly what it means. This is why i created wikiguidelines. It will help people who write the article understand what the article is all about (people on wikipedia do not nead to understand that, because all articles are general-purpose).

Of course, some categories should explain how to use an office suite, like OpenOffice better than MS Office (who want to work for Microsoft for free??). I think each page and category speaks to other people, people with various fielsd of intrest. This should not stop some other category, for example OfficeSuites(programming) in the place of OfficeSuites(usage), where people wil explain the internals of OpenOffice, and how to enhace it.

The main idea is not to write what is already in some other place. For example, is there already a good help integrated into openoffice, it is enaught to write a short most used shortcuts, or whatever is more usefull,a nd write a page explaining how to use the help inside openoffice. About python, if there is already a wiki explaining how to do certain thinks, it is not neaded to write again (unless someone thinks he can do better). The solid core will never go here, for the reason that it neads a repository, and usualy a project page, a forum, etc...But comments about the code could go here. For example how to control the beep-media-player/xmms or winamp from some other application. This are simple and are intended only for programmers.

However, very complex guides should go into the wikibooks howto bookshelf. This should be more like a few wikipedias for experts of any kind and of any level... one of them might be about engineering cars, or whatever. Other about Economics in the IT industry, or whatever.

As an egineer you would like to create Science --> Engineer --> EngineerSoftware. Then you put this category inside the category Computing --> Software --> EngineerSoftware. And then you create sub categories inside EngineerSoftware, named, EngineerSoftwareSOMETHINK or so.

The same way as DesktopSoftware is the best place to go if you are a secretary or a desktop user (maybe)...

moa3333 18:35, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't explain how to apply a particular piece of equipment, it just gives descriptional knowledge.

I think

WikiSolutions should list, (1) what you can do with that particular peace of equipment, and have pages on (2) how to do it with it.

In Wikipedia, if I go to the page about a particular type of cow, I can't learn how to use it.

Okay, Wikipedia perfectly suits to determine, what kind of cow it is, and may tell it's usages, but there is no encyclopaedia to tell what I CAN do with it, and HOW do I do it with it. Even Wikipedia, if I go to C++ wouldn't list what I can do with it, and how. So article is useless if I don't know what I can do with it

Tool: Dairy cow Can do: Milk, Meat, else? .. but how to do it, you wouldn't find in the Wikipedia. It doesn't tell the details about growing them up, keeping, etc. People have various conferences, where they discuss about it, or there are random articles on the web.

For example, Wikipedia does explain the general principles used in PHP, but it doesn't guide you to construct a piece of software that it claims is possible to create.

I don't think that here needs to explain the internals of any machine or Office Suite, it only needs to list tools, that you need to construct or develop it, and links to, or not even list it, as Wikipedia usually states, what programming languages were used for that, so you go search for that language, and try to develop some of the things that are explained how to develop them.

In Wikipedia, they might add to Open Office, what you can create using this tool. E.g.,

-- Open Office

Uses: -- Another example,
 * To create a general document. Creating a general document with Open Office.
 * To create a presentation. Creating a presentation with Open Office.
 * Creating a ...

-- Bos taurus (see Wikipedia for explanation)

Uses: -- So, what is a presentation, people would understand from Wikipedia, as well as, what is a Dairy cow, but it's uses, and manuals how to manufacture what it claims possible, need articles I can't find on the internet quite frequently.
 * To keep as a domestic animal. Keeping a Bos taurus.
 * To create milk. Creating milk with Bos taurus
 * To create meat. Creating meat with Bos taurus

(*) Also, I think we should change the way we write links or keywords without spaces, like "ProgrammingLanguages" into "Programming Languages" with spaces to make it the same as Wikipedia, as it's possible, easier to search, and it's not Twiki or something else, it's a MediaWiki.

My point: maybe we should just systematically index equipment and write articles about how to use it for particular purposes

--Inyuki, 07:19, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It is not good to describe the usages of a dog, as an equipment, because various different breeds are kept differently, and have different uses, so dog is just a category, to which belongs. However, there is something common to all dogs, for example, every dog can be taught to sit on a command. These things that you can do with every dog, would have a meaning listing in the Dog page. The page dog would not only list links to the articles on things that you could do with any dog, it would also list other dogs.

Another example is cows, which are also capable of different things depending on the breed. So, a page about "cow", would have a list of cows belonging to the category of cows at all. Some procedures that are general to all cows, like cutting their meat, might be on the general page.

It would be interesting to list the maximum, what a dog can do on the dogs page, and useful if a person searches for a kind of specific dog, but this information I think should be the scope of the encyclopedia Wikipedia.

--Inyuki, 07:51, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

In this information age, a lot of information is useless, and one of the missions of this project might be to organize the information so that it was useable. That is, describe what you can do with the things around you, and tell you how. If it is written somewhere else, give links to as how to do that, like in the case of Creating a document with Open Office. Later, of course, just as in Wikipedia, there should occur articles too, on how to do the things, not just links I think. Especially on the most popular procedures.

People would create this tutorial as easy as... For example, they don't know what can they use, or how to use the Mambo (CMS) for, so they would create that page. On that page, people would list possible uses, like Creating a Mambo website, near the listed possibility to create a website. This way, people would write how to customize that system, give most useful links, so that a person found the page www.mamboserver.com useful.

Anything else around you were wondering how to use? Go here and write, Million dollar, Google search engine, MySQL database and maybe someone will write, how it is possible to use them, and how exactly to use them for that. The only thing you need is to write at the equipment's page, what you can do with it, and name the article this way.

--Inyuki, 17:18, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

I think it is intresting. It means we wil have for all (important) wikipedia pages a page in howto, that will list various howtos that are linked to it. This measn that if howto becomes popular, it wil have far more pages than wikipedia (for each wikipedia page, there will be a few howtos??). It is not sure, because some activities will be used in many places.
 * What I am suggesting is, for each Wikipedia page there will be only 1 corresponding page, which will list the possible uses of the thing. Next to each possible uses there will be 1 internal (HowTo) link to the article that discusses, how to use the thing that way. For example, in Wikipedia there might be 1 page about a (safety) matches, so there would be a corresponding 1 page on it in HowTo. It will list possible uses of matches, giving internal articles on each of the more important uses. Only in these pages like "old-How to lit a fire with matches" would there be any external links to the HowTos in the internet. The example is Open Office. There is it's use like Creating a presentation with Open Office, and only in this page is there a link to already prepared tutorial off HowTo wiki. That means of course, that HowTo would have much more pages than Wikipedia, as one thing can usually be used for more than purpose. --Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

For example, you should have DOG, that  links to "how to feed a dog?" or so. But you also will have the page "milk" linking to "how to feed an animal?" then  "how to feed an animal?" linking to "how to feed a dog?". Actualy, the tree is in the reverse order. "How to feed a dog?" Well, you nead: a dog, milk, etc.... Or "How to install mambo?", you nead: mambo (CMS),  linux,  a PC,  etc.... Linking from linux or from computer to "how to install mambo?" should or should not be possible?
 * No, I am suggesting that the page on DOG would list only the what you can produce or do with a dog, and more concentrating on production, because feeding a dog is not a final purpose. The final purpose might be entertainment, hunting, or something that is more measurable result, rather than an side-procedure. As the fundamental goal of this wiki is to explain how to recreate what we have created, we have to concentrate on the priciple, that with something we can create something, and then with that something again we can produce something new.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~
 * As for page about the Milk, it would mainly list what can you use milk for. Example, to prodcue cheese (Making a cheese with milk.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~
 * If we concentrate on the reverse order, like starting from "How to install Mambo", we would be lost in not organized questions. What I suggest is creating the page about Mambo (CMS), and listing what actually you can produce with it. No one's goal is to just install a Mambo, people's final goal is to create something more useful. Maybe I had mistaken by entering pages about keeping a general dog, as it doesn't produce anything. It would be more correct to write "Creating pleasure with dog" or something.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~
 * I think linking from Computer would be possible to the extent it is related with the usage of computer. You can use computer to calculate, or use it to create a website, so there should be articles on calclulating with computer, or making a website with computer, where would be listed possibilities. Computer is a single piece of device. Creating a website requires doing something with computer, and there is not a one way to do it a website, so there should be given an outline about the subject and links to other things like Linux server software, where there would be described, what you can use the thing for. One of the uses would be making a website. I propose writing detailed HowTo's on very specific subjects only, and not write useless things.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

Actualy, wikipedia brings the links between important pages, and we should also link from this pages to various howtos. Then sugest to link each page to the wikipedia description, and then to, the list of howtos. Then again, link the wikipedia page to the howto page. This is realy intresting. Because i wanted to link from wikipedia to howtos about backup and there were about 8 howtos, and i saw there were 8 external links from wikipedia to each howto. This way it will be a single page on howto that will link to the 8 howtos.
 * As for linking to Wikipedia articles, I thought. Of course, every THING should be specific, and could (and should) have a link to Wikipedia. I suppose people would be searching for the things still in Wikipedia. There they would find the basics about them. For example, they would get to know what a "website" is, and what is created using web pages, from where one might get to know that one might need a web server. They would come here to search how to use the things like Apache HTTP Server, find the use they are interested in, and find articles on that kind of uses of it. This would eliminate much of the uncertainty.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

Do you think this model should eliminate the categories for all? OR can we still use categories from time to time?? I think categories are complex, so we let them for now without spaces like in "ProgrammingLanguages", and create pages that wil list the programming laguages. Once howto wil become very bbig, we can change categories, but not before, because they are usefull. Anyway, what should categories be used for then? Should them be like in wikipedia? a perfect copy? Is this usefull?
 * Maybe categories are not necessary for now, as we are speaking of the things that are already categorized in Wikipedia. Maybe we could categorize the particular version of software as a kind of software, and all the breeds of dogs as dogs. Of course, all the dogs can also be categorized to the particular types of dogs, like hunting dogs. If you have ideas how to best apply the categories, tell it.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

Besindes that, i think that the guidelines are good. And howtos should have a part with the problem to solve, where someone can use guidelines to describe how the solution should be presented. And a seccond part with the solutions (maybe third part with comments and a short list of excluded solutions and a list of related howtos eventualy).
 * A problem should be listed first. Every HowTo page title would be the description of the problem, like "Creating a presentation with Open Office". It's quite defined problem. The second part about the solutions is all the article. I was searching for as easy as possible way to edit the pages. If people will have to follow the same strict rules of defining a problem like this, they wouldn't participate. It is much easier to brainstorm on what you can do with a thing, write what you can do with it, list and start writing the article on "Doing a with b", than describing a problem and listing solution, which won't be very descriptive, because you were suggesting just giving links to them. Where would we write them if there would be no links in the internet, like "Using plutonium 239 to create a nuclear bomb"? (I am joking)

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

The way we organize howtos with categories or not can be improved, but for me the way howtos are written, with guidelines, is the best way untill now. We will always have 3 kind of pages: organisational pages (like Dog and the categories),  howto pages and guidelines pages. Most pages will be howtos, less will be organisational, and very few will be guidelines. (please note that the NPOV is the ONLY guideline in wikipedia, and we will have many here, so that each howto be able to pick a few...). What do you think?
 * I think that we need little guidlines, only some conventions on categorization. Of course, there is nothing you can do with just a "dog", you only can do something with a particular breed of it. But the pages like "dog" are necessary for brainstorming, and might be much more convenient for people who don't know what dog can be used for, so that one could use it. It is not clear, what is better to write - every thing that is possible with dog, or only things that are possible with any dog. However, if we would write about what you can do with a dog at maximum, we won't be able to write completely about it... And I think, that after all, the Wikipedia should tell, what you can do with any kind of dog, in general, and what dogs can be used for it. HowTo's scope would be just explaining how to use the specific things.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

moa3333 07:06, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

In fact, i was always thinking that the system with categories was a little difficult to maintain if many people work on it. We should think about the role of categories later, and not delete them. Anyway,, categories should be focused on the howtos, NOT on the organisational pages (clones of wikipedia), so that we do not create clone-categories that already exist in wikipedia.
 * Yes, I agree. We need not to duplicate the Wikipedia. Maybe we don't need categories at all, just the organisational pages. I tried to make a page on "Open Office Impress", and put the explanation how to use it to create a presentation. However, later decided that it is better to list this task as a task of Open Office. What do you think is better?

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

moa3333 07:25, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i cannot edit the main page?? moa3333 07:35, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wanted to keep it for some time. You can edit it now.

--Inyuki 15:45, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

By the way, I have just been browsing a page about Pyrophoric Iron, and I have felt that I may want to produce Pyrophoric Iron (it is used as an oxygen absorber, and can be useful to preserve food products in packages). However, if I am interested in producing such thing, I wouldn't find that kind of information in this HowTo, if it only listed what I can do with the finished product, as I proposed before. So maybe we need pages on producing the thing. What I am telling, we need additional 1 link on a page that discusses production of the thing, like this:

-- Open Office

old-How to create Open Office

With any Open Office you can: --
 * To create a general document. Creating a general document with Open Office.
 * To create a presentation. Creating a presentation with Open Office.
 * Creating a ...

That's all. This "how to create" page would give links to discussion with links to pages that you need to start creating it.

Another example:

-- Pyrophoric Iron

How to create Pyrophoric Iron

With Pyrophoric Iron you can: ... --
 * Create an Oxygen Absorber. Creating an oxygen absorber with Pyrophoric Iron.

It seems that this kind of writing would allow even to effectively go for the goal to actually create such a resource that would explain how to create the modern things in natural environment.

Some things might be though untracable nowadays, such as production of steel requires the iron finds, which are presently taken with some equipment which is made of iron.

In the article old-How to create Iron there would be links to presently existing technologies which are used to create it, however, there should also gradually be described ways to do it without that present-day technology. This, of course, might be interseting only for historians and those who might think that the civilisation might need to remember the old ways of production in the future. The present-day market of knowledge (that is, the knowledge on demand) is more that of "What you can do with something", than "How to create that something".

However, sometimes things that you can create with something, like, creating a MediaWiki with PHP, might be linked to the page old-How to create MediaWiki. This is where the to ends meet, I think.

However, the ends might not meet, and only be interrelated: A page "old-How to create MediaWiki" would perhaps discuss more how to contribute the MediaWiki creation (though in the primary sense, How to create MediaWiki should discuss the principles under MediaWiki, and how they are realised (not just PHP)). A page "old-How to create MediaWiki with PHP" (belonging to PHP) would perhaps discuss how to apply the PHP to create a MediaWiki part with PHP, it would not say about other parts of MediaWiki a lot. So, an article old-How to create MediaWiki could use the PHP part to explain how.

So it seems that explaining "old-How to create Iron" is more difficult than explaining "What can I do with Iron", applying it for specific uses. I think that these pages about applications, could later be used to explain the creation of the actual things, or just used as reference. For example, a page "old-How to create MediaWiki with PHP" would be a reference page for writing a page "old-How to create MediaWiki", or they could be linked, I think.

The good here is that the questions "How to..?" are quite defined. It is not difficult to think or search for how to create Iron, and it is not difficult to think of things that can be created or are created using it.

Anyway, there is still another point, for example, if we have Iron, we can do a lot of things, right? Maybe we have to write what else we are using? Like... the specific technology, what else needed. E.g.:

-- Pyrophoric Iron

How to create Pyrophoric Iron

With Pyrophoric Iron you can: (requires: Pyrophoric Iron, a, b, c, d) ... --
 * Create an Oxygen Absorber. Creating an oxygen absorber with Pyrophoric Iron, a, b, c, d.

In the things a, b, c, d would also be link to the same article, discussing the exact thing, the exact technology, defined peace of know-how.

--Inyuki, 03:28, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

I imagine that using this knowledge computer should be able to automatically choose, what you can do with what you have, just like you can find the road from point A to B in Google Maps. That would be a goal of this project. The roads are the technologies, that enable to go from point A to point B. Creating an oxygen absorber with Pyrophoric Iron, a, b, c, d should be a solid piece of technology, that would definitely lead you to creation of the thing if you have the things written in the "required: ..,..,..". That is, just like a solid Class in programming.

--Inyuki, 04:50, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

By the way, don't you feel that technologies are even more closed and less accessible than software. We have Open Source software, but not Free and Open Technologies. Well, we have open patents, but at least I don't know any resource for open technologies... like Open Source software.

--Inyuki, 10:13, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

Yes, it is intresting. It is a good starting point. However, before we have a lot of pages it will be difficult to navigate without the use of categories.

What bothers me most is that there are almost no real contributors since almost one year ago. How that wikipedia has almost one million users, with more than 25 new users every hower, and no one of this one milion people, not at least 10 or 50 will try to help the howto project???

Do you think it is because it is not an official mediawiki project? or because it has publicity? Or just because people don't know about it? If it is just because people don't know about it, can we make some publicity? For example first for just a few competent people, then as the site grows, for even more people.

It realy bothers me this general-purpose wiki has less contibutors than my grandmother's oncle wiki... lol

moa3333 12:07, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed to this wiki because I've only just heard of it. 68.125.99.74 02:57, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well what doesn't :-) bother me is that I will be comming here and writing about the things, because I already have accustomed with entering http://en.howto.wikicities.com/wiki/[something], just like I do with Wikipedia. I already did it with JavaScript very naturally while being at work, and it was not painful. I think the number of articles will increase.

As for the number of editors, there is a principle of popularity, and also other factors, like: 1. Making a presentation of how to edit it, maybe in Flash? 2. Making a nice website name. I registered the www.wikitech.org, but Angela with Jason didn't accept it, as it was registered not by Wikia.

I think we would need to do that some time anyway. So, for example, now, I will go to Macromedia Flash and write on creating a simple presentation with it? :) I mean, it's one of the thing I CAN do with it.

Huh? Your grandmother's wiki? Okay.

I simply had no motivation to make it popular before there was some more realistic starting point, except for the goal.

--Inyuki, 15:31, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

About editing. The big question.
You may quite frequently wonder... "How to... damn to create it with this programming language..." or something else, like how to create Pyrophoric Iron. So you go to the page of that programming language, like, or a page of Iron(if you know that there is a technology to create it directly from Iron), or Pyrophoric Iron.

JavaScript, and write the BIG QUESTION

old-How to create JavaScript

(it's needed for our primary goal to find how to create anything from scratch, and someone will write about it in the future, if you are not interested yourself), then you can forget it and write what matters for you:

With JavaScript you can:

(Well, it's another burden, just we think it is good that you identified the exact thing at least once, and related it with the Wikipedia, the world's free and open encyclopaedia.) Further you write what you think you want to create with it, or about creation of what you are going to write. Just add a line:

* Create this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla.

Then when you described that, create a title of the page for discussion of the creation of it, like this:

Create this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla WITH JavaScript

It is important to write in this kind of structure and the word "with", which identifies the dependency of the article to JavaScript. It means you will concentrate more on the technology of JavaScript, rather than other things.

That's all. You should be getting something like this: JavaScript

old-How to create JavaScript With JavaScript you can:
 * Create this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla. Creating this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla WITH JavaScript

You save it, and go to page "Create this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla bla WITH JavaScript", and write there while searching the solution.

You can save it and leave it as a draft if you didn't finished it, or think it is not working yet, or there is no enough information, e.g., in the links. As far as your goal is defined in the name of the page, it can be understood by others, and others will be able to contribute it. This way you would contribute naturally

There might be many ways to accomplish the thing, so you might separate them, or even create new pages for each of them...-->

Back to discussion
There are many people who continuously want to create something with something. They will add new uses for JavaScript, and not so freqeuently they will want to create the something they are creating something with, the tool, like a programming language or operating system. However, it came into existence because of usage of the other tools, just like you are using the ones now. So this just using of tools should finally lead to improved ability to understand and recreate the things...

--Inyuki, 18:27, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

The trick
When you come to Wikipedia, you usually start an article with a question "What is..X". The success of this question is that it is not so difficult to start a reasearch and find something on what it is. Other people can add some more information. If there was a question like "How to..?", most people won't be able to answer it, as it's a difficult question with various cases and dependencies.

When you come to HowTo wiki, you would ask a question "What can I GET with..X" (yes, this greedy and practical question). This question should be much more succesful than a question "How to do..X", because this question is as easy as a question "What is..X". It is much easier to answer first what you can do with it than how. But the trick is, it leads to answering the question how.

--Inyuki, 04:51, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)~

I am thinking of how to even more simplify the editing. Maybe we should not repeat at this place: * Create this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla. Creating this piece of thing that did this, this, and that, bla bla WITH JavaScript writing it two times. I think it might be better to write then:

* Creating this piece of thing that can do this, this, and that WITH X (requires: ..,..,..) And then the article about Open Office would look like: Open Office (suggested)

old-How to create Open Office

With any Open Office you can get:

This way we would get off the unnecessary information and repetition, and a lot of editing. That is, not to write "Creating ... The question is: is this enough clear for a person that the article talks about the creation of the thing or solving the problem written in the article.
 * A general document with Open Office
 * A presentation with Open Office

Or would it be better to write like this: Open Office (up to now)

old-How to create Open Office

With any Open Office you can get:

? The dilemma I am seeing here is, people have to think of answering a question what they can "get" with it, and create an article on "getting" it. So, perhaps writing it twice is necessary, and it is better to leave it the way it is, and leave the repetition. However, still, it is better to "you can get", instead of just the general "you can", because only by getting something from somthing there was an evolution of things. By adding this word "get" we would make the scope of this material a little bit smaller, but even more practical and to-the-goal.
 * A general document with Open Office. Creating a general document with Open Office
 * A presentation with Open Office. Creating a presentation with Open Office

--Inyuki, 08:42, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Still, however, I have doubts about it. For example, I find a service on the net like http://photozou.jp, and I want to get something. Maybe the general "can" instead of "can get" would be more practical, because when you think, in the thinking process, it is easier to answer what you can, than what you can get. And there are things that don't give you actually alot, but you can do something with them. So many people would be interested in what they can do, rather than what they can GET, and so, it is easier to create more pages just using the "can". If I ask "can" for service, I should answer "I can get hosting for 10 000 photos for free, which is...", if I should I answer what I can, I would answer, "I can add pictures and share with friends..etc" (in detail). It is much more understandable the answer to as what I can, than what I can get, for most of the people. If people won't be able to easily understand or define what they can, the evolution of the wiki will be slowered.

The resolution on "can get" or "can"
Eventually, I think users should write "With X you can:", but actually think about "With X you can get:" or "can create", when they are brainstorming on what you can. We could also separate the groups with h2 ==, like this:

With X you can: == Get == * 1 * 2 * ... == Do == * 1 * 2 * ... == Create == * 1 * 2 * ...

--Inyuki, 08:53, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we only nead to find a few people to help starting the wiki. People who know well how to edit a wiki, people that worked on wikipedia since the begining, and that we don't nead there now, since wikipedia is self-sustaining. I was not thinking about the general people, not untill the project has a few competent contributors. If we get 200 incompetent people before the project grows bigger, they willl probably screw everythink up.

Anyway, i have much less time to work on it now, than i had last year.

moa3333 13:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the big part of the Wikipedia was created by a relatively few people, who made the most contributions. Yes, I think it would be good to get these few qualified people for organizing it better.

By the way, I started now browsing Wikipedia a little, and noticed, that when you browse Wikipedia, you see lot of things that actually are useless historical information, a lot of things that are far from important, pleople, sticking to the things that are far from the realism. Now, when I browse Wikipedia, I think of what I can GET, and if I find something I can GET, I write it here. :)

I am thinking now of how to automatically import the names of pages in the form

How to create <<>> With <<>> you can: *

from Wikipedia...

Inyuki 13:54, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Plan 2006-01-08
I think the best way to begin is this:
 * work on howto, and create many pages, but a few that are particularly well done (free software portal for example or whatever you think will attract good contributors). In the meantime, if you know the blog/wikipedia talk page of a few people who are good contributors on wikipedia, try to tell them about howto, and invite them to help you start the website (not a public call, only a few people)
 * Once a few portals/pages are completed with good shape and well done, then go to the wikipedia and make a link from the page. For example, if the page about Dog is completed, go to Dog on wikipedia, and write somewere on the top, after the description, a link saying "Know how to get something from a dog." If people will not let you make a link from there, than, a link must be made somewere in the page very visible, so that someone browsing the web page understands the actual purpose of howto, witch is to be symetrical to wikipedia on all pages. It should be good also to make it more like unecyclopedia, changing everythink so that people will see it is actualy complementary with wikipedia. Once people will see this links from wikipedia pages, they will eventualy come and edit howto also.
 * Once we have many contributors, we can make a public call for synchronisation, and the first step could be integrating the howto as official wikipedia project. This is not to do now, for two reasons: wikipedia servers are overloaded, and howto is not yet big enaught.

In order to make howto more close to wikipedia, so that people understand what is all about, i think we could change its name, from howto to Howtopedia. Actualy Howtopedia is a good name, we don't nead to say it is a wiki, since that is obvious now, but we want it to be an ecyclopedia of what you can get...

moa3333 07:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Howtopedia, is already taken:
 * howtopedia.de - under GFDL licence! But in deutch.
 * howtopedia.org - created by a french women in Switserland, but the licence is completly unknown.

howtopedia.org was created in May 2005, after the howto project... however i wonder about the trademarks...

Again, they say:
 * does not give medical advice
 * does not give legal opinions
 * contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable
 * makes no guarantee of validity

Should we keep this guidelines? I mean is there any legal risk? Can we just put near the edit button, "if you submit informations about mediacal advice, you should be a professional with experiance in this field?" exactly like you say "you agree you have the copyright on the material you submit or it is under GFDL etc...". This kind of problem will come, but i think wikibooks and other wikis already dealed with this problem...

moa3333

Your advise and plan is very good, and I understand the trick you are suggesting.

In addition to that, I think we should start using mailing list for those, who understand the concept for discussion about small problems. Anyway, that is not an essential thing.

All providers might eventually be interested in editing this project

In addition, when this project will grow, many service and other kind of providers will want to let the world know about them, and might be interested in creating the pages about what you can get from them. I already started writing a little on Photozou, a small website I was working on. I think the owners would want to tell about this, and make someone write about it. So, it has a potential to be edited by a lot of providers of anything in the world.

Only it is a little bit doubtful if all of the retail'ers need it, as we want actually to know something more than just how to buy something. But for this there is the question of how to make the thing with that you can (the big question), and I think this will make people more curious to ask about it.

In addition to that, now just asking very simple questions makes me make a page, like this:

recently I wanted to ask Angela how can I give them the domain www.wikitech.org that I registered, just in case it could be used. I don't think it is the best domain name, but just in case. So I naturally created a page: Domain name, added the question and asked her answer the question in http://en.howto.wikicities.com/wiki/Domain_name. I don't know if she will, but that's I think is quite convenient.

^_^ This is one of the reasons why I said that I am not bothering that I will keep editing it.

Anyway, I will try following your advices and the plan, and.. by the way, do you think it is better to use Google Groups, or the MailMan groups provided by Wikicities? I don't know, but when I saw that sometimes pages from Wikicities disappear forever, I have more courage doing that in Google Groups. What do you think?

Inyuki, 13:14, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I like Mathematics, so I will start adding things from mathematics :).

Inyuki, 14:37, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Not always do we put something under "you can" category. Here is an example.

Yesterday I received a letter from my friend with this picture:

And I thought that this should belong to the howto, because it is how to create a hot water supply. It's rather on how to create the supply, than what you can do with a kettle, so I create an article Hot water supply, and made use of the very first linke old-How to create Hot water supply, not the listing of what can I do with it.

Up to now, I didn't encounter a howto question, I couldn't put into the previously suggested form.

--Inyuki, 04:20, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you think it would be better add seeds like this,

Abelian integral

old-How to create Abelian integral

With Abelian integral you can:

or this: Abelian integral

old-How to create Abelian integral

With Abelian integral you can:

Do (void) Get (create) --Inyuki, 04:20, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

^_^ I think in this would many people be interested: Girlfriend Boyfriend

Just... Okay. Anyway. Continue to work.

Adding seeds to Mathematics category.

--Inyuki, 04:56, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

How to determine - Get or Do
I think it is enough to have to categories under "can": Get and Do. The categories needs because it is better that people were thinking of Get, as it's more practical, but if we write "you can get:", it is we will have to write the names of things that we can get, so the names of the articles will end up in names, not sentences. However, we want that the names of articles were sentences, like "Createing X with Y", rather than just X with Y. Another reason, it is not always that you get something from a procedure. Sometimes the process is the essential thing, and something ends with the process. So, here are two types of "can":

Do, and Get.

See the example below: Hot water supply

old-How to create Hot water supply

With Hot water supply you can: Do (void) (The product disappears as soon as you finish creating it.)

Get (create) (The product remains created even if you stop your creative actions.)
 * Hot bath of water. Creating hot bath of water with hot water supply

If it is difficult to think, where - Do or Get - the thing belongs to, think of this example.

If you have create a bath with a hot water, it will remain a bath with hot water, with wich you can create something else, like bathing. However, bathing will not be a stable product, as it stopps as you stop doing it, so bathing would belong to the category Do. Pleasure would also belong to the category Do, unless it is something that remains even if you don't continue doing the action.

You may doubt that hot bath is not very stable, as the heat dissipates and it will become a cold bath. But even in this case it should belong to the Get, because if you stop creating it, it remains a hot bath for some time, which is enough to create something else.

Inyuki, 10:54, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Intresting idea
I've read you page User:Inyuki/Notes and it is intresting. However i am thinking now that you nead more than that in some cases (maybe many cases).

The hole page is about X. This idea will go one step further into integrating guidelines idea with what you described on the page. The page should have the folowing areas:

(1) ACQUISITION of X

(2) USAGE of X

(3) HowTo X WITH

Actually (1) and (2) are the same as in your page. (3) will be like this:

HowTo X WITH
 * Y
 * Z and M
 * N and O and P
 * Q
 * R

Each will be a page, for example, the page Y: (there is an ACQUISITION on some composed pages)

This page is about X and Y (with links to their own page)

ACQUISITION of X with Y

USAGE of X with Y
 * do this using X without using Y at all...
 * Use X and Y to do this or that
 * etc...

HowTo X with Y with
 * M (this will point to a page about X and Y and M)

For example, we should have a page where x=free software, y = office suite and z=linux:

This page is about linux, free software and office suites:

ACQUISITION of X with Y with Z
 * OpenOffice
 * Gnome office
 * Koffice

USAGE (no nead to create this, because each office suite has its own page with usage, and general usgae about office suites is in a page about office suites only)

moa3333 14:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)