On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
[rhetorical point on prejudice against lisp motivating a fork for programming languages]
That is not myy point. I'm sure you can hadle these people. Others perhaps cannot. Forks also allow the coverage of unencyopedic topics until they become encyopedic
Ah, so it's not about fostering a good working environment at all, but about your belief that some topics are unencyclopedic and this may be rectified by forking "until they become encyopedic"? Could you explain this reasoning a bit more?
I currently have a picture of the structure of an organic molicule in front of me. It has never been made and nothing has been published on it. I could probably bash something together based on assumed properties but it would not be encyopedic. In time though the molicule probably will be made and if it becomes significant it may become encyopedic. At that point we could have an article ready to add to wikipedia.
Well if webcomic experts depart to form a new community, this is in effect a split in the community. One that you appear to think was a good thing.
The community is not the wiki.
-- geni