On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@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@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@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@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.