InstaGov/syntax - Revision history

Woozle: updating to reflect what I seem to be actually implementing

2012-12-30T17:18:45Z

updating to reflect what I seem to be actually implementing

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 30 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==Displaying Lists==~~		Currently, all in-page functionality is implemented via the {{xmltag\|igov}} tag, which has the following options:
	* '''answers''':
	** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>

	==~~Voting~~==		* '''show''': displays various information
	~~<igov type~~=~~vote><u>attribute being voted on</u></igov>~~		** '''show=answers''': list answers for a set of criteria
	* show vote ~~status for this item~~, and ~~accept votes from qualified users~~		*** '''q='''(question ID)
	* ~~parameters:~~		*** '''u='''(user ID or name)
	** '''~~text~~''' ~~or tag contents: text describing what attribute is being voted on~~ (~~quality of writing, quality of argument, agree with conclusion, belongs in category, importance, etc.~~)		*** '''name='''(name of output array for each row)
	* display format will be fixed at first, later based on templates from which user can choose in preferences		*** '''vpage='''[name of var in which to store each page name]
			** '''show=question''': show summary and status of a given question (vote totals and statistics), and link to Special page for voting on it
			*** '''q='''(question ID)
			==show = question==
	* default display format should show:		* default display format should show:
	** your vote		** your vote
Line 16:		Line 17:
	*** later: list of individual votes		*** later: list of individual votes
	*** later: voting history for this item		*** later: voting history for this item
			==Implement later==
	~~The rigorous way to do this would be for vote to be tied to a particular revision of a page. I am hoping that community monitoring will turn out to be more effective at preventing malicious topic~~-~~modification than revision control would be -- e.g. users can vote on whether an edit reflects a significant change to a page's meaning~~, ~~and whether it should have been posted~~ as a ~~separate page. That will also take some development, but won't be as much of a usability obstacle as making everyone vote ''again'' every time there's~~ a ~~minor tweak to an answer's content.~~		* If the tag-pair has any contents, use that as a format for displaying the data; otherwise use a default format.

	~~In any case, I'm taking the approach of developing the simplest system that's usable, but trying to anticipate problems and having ideas fleshed out for dealing with them if they happen~~.

Woozle: extracted SMW syntax to SMW page

2012-12-30T15:59:42Z

extracted SMW syntax to SMW page

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 30 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Displaying Lists==		==Displaying Lists==
	* '''answers''':		* '''answers''':
	** [[Semantic MediaWiki\|SMW]]: <nowiki>{{#ask: [[Response to::</nowiki><u>name of question</u><nowiki>]] [[Category:Igov/answer]]}}</nowiki>
	*** this is only somewhat useful, as there is no way of formatting the results based on w3tpl content
	** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>		** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>

	==Voting==		==Voting==
	~~''This is still in development''~~

	<igov type=vote><u>attribute being voted on</u></igov>		<igov type=vote><u>attribute being voted on</u></igov>
	* show vote status for this item, and accept votes from qualified users		* show vote status for this item, and accept votes from qualified users

Woozle: what the vote display should contain; thoughts about rigorousness vs. community policing

2011-05-15T02:26:51Z

what the vote display should contain; thoughts about rigorousness vs. community policing

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 15 May 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** this is only somewhat useful, as there is no way of formatting the results based on w3tpl content		*** this is only somewhat useful, as there is no way of formatting the results based on w3tpl content
	** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>		** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>

	==Voting==		==Voting==
	''This is still in development''		''This is still in development''

	<igov type=<u>~~type~~</u> />		<igov type=vote><u>attribute being voted on</u></igov>
	* '''type''':		* show vote status for this item, and accept votes from qualified users
	** '''answers''': list summaries for all answers to this page's question		* parameters:
	* '''vote''':		** '''text''' or tag contents: text describing what attribute is being voted on (quality of writing, quality of argument, agree with conclusion, belongs in category, importance, etc.)
	** show vote status for this item, and accept votes from qualified users		* display format will be fixed at first, later based on templates from which user can choose in preferences
	** parameters:		* default display format should show:
	*** '''text''' or tag contents: text describing what attribute is being voted on (quality of writing, quality of argument, agree with conclusion, belongs in category, importance, etc.)		** your vote
			** sum of all votes (including yours)
			*** later: weighted sum based on credibility ratings
			*** later: how your proxies voted
			*** later: list of individual votes
			*** later: voting history for this item

			The rigorous way to do this would be for vote to be tied to a particular revision of a page. I am hoping that community monitoring will turn out to be more effective at preventing malicious topic-modification than revision control would be -- e.g. users can vote on whether an edit reflects a significant change to a page's meaning, and whether it should have been posted as a separate page. That will also take some development, but won't be as much of a usability obstacle as making everyone vote ''again'' every time there's a minor tweak to an answer's content.

			In any case, I'm taking the approach of developing the simplest system that's usable, but trying to anticipate problems and having ideas fleshed out for dealing with them if they happen.

Woozle: actual code for listing answers

2011-05-12T13:59:12Z

actual code for listing answers

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:59, 12 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Displaying Lists==		==Displaying Lists==
	* '''answers''': <nowiki>{{#ask: [[Response to::</nowiki><u>name of question</u><nowiki>]] [[Category:Igov/answer]]}}</nowiki>		* '''answers''':
			** [[Semantic MediaWiki\|SMW]]: <nowiki>{{#ask: [[Response to::</nowiki><u>name of question</u><nowiki>]] [[Category:Igov/answer]]}}</nowiki>
			*** this is only somewhat useful, as there is no way of formatting the results based on w3tpl content
			** <igov list=answers name=igov target="<u>name of question</u>" vpage=<u>output var name</u> >''w3tpl code to display each result''</igov>
	==Voting==		==Voting==
	''This is still in development''		''This is still in development''

Woozle: preliminary syntax

2011-05-12T13:55:10Z

preliminary syntax

New page

==Displaying Lists==
* '''answers''': <nowiki>{{#ask: [[Response to::</nowiki><u>name of question</u><nowiki>]] [[Category:Igov/answer]]}}</nowiki>
==Voting==
''This is still in development''

<igov type=<u>type</u> />
* '''type''':
** '''answers''': list summaries for all answers to this page's question
* '''vote''':
** show vote status for this item, and accept votes from qualified users
** parameters:
*** '''text''' or tag contents: text describing what attribute is being voted on (quality of writing, quality of argument, agree with conclusion, belongs in category, importance, etc.)