Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
How many people arrive at Wiki as a result of a "social interaction" or
"chat" search on Google? Has that even been suggested in a motto of the day?
That's a reasonable argument for mysapce's success, not an encyclopedia who's
goal is to share the sum of the world's knowledge.
I'll respond on the rest later.~~~~Pro-Lick
I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
"social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,
Then don't use "social interaction". How about some words that generally
encapsulate whatever it is your point is? After reading the current reply, I didn't
see any other point.
Wikipedia works because people come together
contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they
Again, that's why you think it works. Repeating this over and over isn't the same
as verifiability. I think you're mistaking the means with the end. We've been
over this. Source it. I'm not interested in socializing about it.
All of this would fall under "social interaction" in the standard
So your point is "social interaction". Start a new email thread with that
subject and enjoy. You won't have to "exhaust" yourself for my social
development because I won't be socially interacting with it. This email subject is
very clearly about applying existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes
with doing so. I do appreciate you providing an interactive case study.~~~~Pro-Lick
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.