On 01/09/2007, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/31/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Details are tricky
Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less.
But note the edit summery (sic)
"99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers"
Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles.
And casual readers never become editors, do they?
Wrong edit summery.
Nyet. I would
regard anything not of immediate significant global
importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed
in sitenotice to be a problem.
Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten
things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course
resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\
ten things in not in sitenotice
This does not
mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea.
OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless."
Placing what you suggested in anon notice would
be largely pointless since > the things you list are not
really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited
by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
) nor is
there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with
editing content anyway.
Should I go on?
There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While
anons can and do fix spellings stylistic issues and hatnotes are not
something I see them dealing with much.