On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org
Says you. I'm sure a lot of researchers, sociologists, wikipedians, and the curious would disagree.
I have to agree that fixing Google results for "verifiability" is not our problem. In addition, try and think of this from the point of view of a newbie trying to figure out how WP works.
Yes, sorry on re-reading what I said seems a little assy. I meant "says you", as "says you, an insider", as everyone on this list is. I don't think we can necessarily do a great job at guessing what people want when they search for things in Wikipedia. I don't search for our neutrality policy either, because I know where it is, and that we have one, but outsiders might.
I'm very aware of the problem though, and think the no-index magic word is a very good, change. Page blanking does work almost all the time, but what about areas that have a high likelihood for problems? Should we not index from the start, or only blank as needed for the sake of transparency? I kinda like both solutions equally. :P