On 8/29/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/08/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/08/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There is still such a vast collection of information in a typical
academic library that we don't cover. I can't imagine ever running out
of
things to write.
Presumably by "a lack of low-hanging fruit" is meant "a lack of fruit that actively jumps into one's mouth."
The media, particularly the geek web media sphere, does inform new articles - anything covered in Slashdot is going to be well-covered in Wikipedia in short order. So for those complaining that we're out of low-hanging fruit, we need other media feeds. Or something.
- d.
As for REDIRECTS - what is the current policy? take two of my google searches yesterday as examples* j s m ward *
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&...
the first wikipedia page is miles away John Sebastian Marlow Ward
;and kryolite (my alternative? spelling of Cryolite) http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kryolite&meta= If one hears a word on television or radio its not always obvious how it is spelled
i would never suggest that every permutation of an articles name should be a redirect, but i wouldn't consider writing one now that everybody has TW. I just wouldn't be bothered with arguing over a PROD on a redirect.
Good point. I've stumbled on many useful redirects deleted for no apparent reason other than someone thought they were a waste of server resources, which is really ridiculous IMO. (I believe a developer once pointed out that an edit which skips a redirect causes more strain on the server than people following that redirect.)
Johnleemk