On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Carl Beckhorn <cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a
viewpoint that would be
worth reading even if the author were anonymous.
Only, he does not feel this way about the viewpoints of others who are
anonymous.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
So maybe I should have read that draft instead. It
would be nice to
know which versions were approved by the three editors above, and at
what stage.
Ah, be patient, Carch. Since enwiki rejects FlaggedRevs as
antithetical to open editing, I predict Larry will pick up on it as it
affords Sangerpedia a cheap, trivial way to be Radically Different
from Jimbopedia.
Actually using the tool, to tighten up the status quo which he
considers Still Too Open (to dissent, for example), will just be a
pleasant side effect. The same can be said about knowing who approved
which edits, this helps those studying the editorial forensics of a
failing project but it is still secondary to creating a deep
philosophical contrast.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not
making any judgements based
on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic
curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around
2013-14.
"The end is near!"
"Which end?"
In breadth of coverage Wikipedia is still in its early adolescence.
Myself I learned a lesson about guessing numbers—don't bother, sweet
chariot, you'll always swing too low.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think a lot of people that like writing new articles
don't like the fine tuning
that is required to get from Good to Featured
I don't know about all that. When I write a new article I don't like
the pedantic ref-bombing that is needed to prevent it from being
deleted 16.9 seconds later... but I still do it... to hell with the
other stuff.
—C.W.