"George Herbert" <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38a7bf7c0905051122p21b2e13bn6d44e860fee4f127@mail.gmail.com...
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
I developed an entire user help system once which
required that all
information be one 23x80 character text frame, including a line of
navigation info and a line of the next prompt (useful: 21x80). That
was
quite a challenge.
Wrapping a useful amount of encyclopedic info into Tweets is possible
but
extremely painful. Especially as there's no links.
Even if it could be done, the Wikipedia system of rules would not be so
amenable.
The english Wikipedia system is predicated on a high-multimedia potential,
for our purposes unlimited length format, where ability to source detailed
information and have long arguments about prominence of key ideas in the
article is a good thing.
Having only 140 characters to work with (or even 1600ish, as my example)
is
a limit which would require entirely different approaches.
Writing smaller is harder - people able to wordsmith will move to the
prominence somewhat.
Identifying the 5ish key facts (who, what, when, where, why, etc) for any
topic is probably easier than figuring out how to write a NPOV 10,000 word
article on a contentious issue.
It is a matter of organization that is hard. Lead sentences and paragraphs
are important, though, because you are supposed to repeat them at the end of
an essay, with other words, perhaps. In an article like [[prion]] or
anything else that challenjez precepts, repeating the lead would be as
contentious as trying to rewrite the lead. IOW, summaries and nutshells are
rare in wikipedia, outside of what is explicitly an essay.
_______
I hav not tried one mix that I recommended, once: Sambuca and Root Beer.