Even more alternative solution: move it off of Wikipedia altogether,
to the webspace of some brave soul who would be happy to post a list
of "articles EB has that Wikipedia does not" (they could even pretend
it was an anti-Wikipedia page!).
One could easily imagine a script which would cycle through the
articles once every few days and check if they are still red-linked,
and move the filled in ones to a different section of the page. Hell,
I'll *write* that script if nobody else will. Then we can forget the
whole question. If someone will host it.
(I'd host it myself if I had any webspace of my own which could support it)
FF
On 6/25/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
And if
they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course,
ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
Only if we presume the material is copyvio... So far the only people
in our community who have any authority at all on the matter who have
responded can not agree.
I'd suggest that it be moved into another wiki to escape the debate,
but there is a huge technical reason to have it in wikipedia...
Redlinks.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l