Toby Bartels wrote:
For those worried that "firefighter" tends to imply that a wave of newbies is a problem (a raging fire), just remember that it was originally the Wikipedia "militia".
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but the damage a small part of them do (either intentional or not). "Guide" is still too paternal for my taste. In my part of the world at least, firefighters play the role of general emergency personell (providing extraction and medical assistance at car crashes and such) and only on relatively rare occasions fight actual fires. IMO that makes them a very positive symbol.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The Maverick wrote:
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but the damage a small part of them do (either intentional or not). "Guide" is still too paternal for my taste. In my part of the world at least, firefighters play the role of general emergency personell (providing extraction and medical assistance at car crashes and such) and only on relatively rare occasions fight actual fires. IMO that makes them a very positive symbol.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Ha. "Wikipedia Emergency Medical Technicians." JTE (just to explain), I was maybe thinking the firefighter thing was kind of a novelty act. When the high tide of post 911 nationalism eventually goes back out to sea, the seaweed and rotting orcas left behind dont usually get doused with retardant and hooked up to plasma. But then again they dont get "shepherded" off either. :) I suppose shepherds have more to do -- firefighters conduct their normal lives and toss foam on occasion -- shephership requires devotion and dedication, while firefighters only need a pager -- So, yeah I suppose firefighters might fit the WP better.
-S-
-S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Steve Vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:
Ha. "Wikipedia Emergency Medical Technicians." JTE (just to explain), I was maybe thinking the firefighter thing was kind of a novelty act. When the high tide of post 911 nationalism eventually goes back out to sea, the seaweed and rotting orcas left behind dont usually get doused with retardant and hooked up to plasma. But then again they dont get "shepherded" off either. :) I suppose shepherds have more to do -- firefighters conduct their normal lives and toss foam on occasion -- shephership requires devotion and dedication, while firefighters only need a pager -- So, yeah I suppose firefighters might fit the WP better.
Well, how about janitors? Seems to imply that not only do we take the trash out, we're not positioning ourselves in a position that can be perceived as paternal or as a figure of authority.
For those who prefer to be more down-to-earth, they can be known as the garbage men or trash collectors.
For those whose egos resist such labels, how about maintenance technician?
Finally, for those who don't want to be associated with trash or dirt and prefer the more esteemed world of the medical profession: nurses.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Steve Vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:
Ha. "Wikipedia Emergency Medical Technicians." JTE (just to explain), I was maybe thinking the firefighter thing was kind of a novelty act. When the high tide of post 911 nationalism eventually goes back out to sea, the seaweed and rotting orcas left behind dont usually get doused with retardant and hooked up to plasma. But then again they dont get "shepherded" off either. :) I suppose shepherds have more to do -- firefighters conduct their normal lives and toss foam on occasion -- shephership requires devotion and dedication, while firefighters only need a pager -- So, yeah I suppose firefighters might fit the WP better.
Well, how about janitors? Seems to imply that not only do we take the trash out, we're not positioning ourselves in a position that can be perceived as paternal or as a figure of authority.
Finally, for those who don't want to be associated with trash or dirt and prefer the more esteemed world of the medical profession: nurses.
How about '''phagocytes''' circulating thoroughout the body of Wikipedia devouring infections?
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How about '''phagocytes''' circulating thoroughout the body of Wikipedia devouring infections?
Nice... Except, what's a phagocyte? Wikipedia Antibiotics?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How about '''phagocytes''' circulating thoroughout
the body of
Wikipedia devouring infections?
Nice... Except, what's a phagocyte? Wikipedia Antibiotics?
White blood cells or things with similar function, I think. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I tried putting this on the Village pump, but that's impossible to edit right now -- far too large and it takes too long to save, and edit conflicts are de rigeur. I tried putting it on the Talk:Main Page, but just as I was saving, Wikipedia crashed. So, here, maybe somebody can figure out what is going wrong and what can be done about it.
I need help with Searching. I tried to split up [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] into [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]] and [[Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?]], but when I tried to move the page to [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]], I was told that there is already a page with that name. I then tried to use BOTH "Go" and "Search" to look for the page with the question mark, without the question mark, and just looking for Carmen Sandiego, and got nothing even close to what I was looking for. In fact, "Search" returned '''''EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE''''' that had a string of "in" in it, regardless of whether it was a separate word or not. It's impossible to find the page in order to see what its contents are to know what to do with [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]]
As it now stands, if we have both [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]] and [[Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] (I don't know about the last one), we definitely don't need [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]], but which one should it redirect to?
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Rick wrote:
I need help with Searching.
I've switched the search to use MySQL 4's more powerful boolean search mode. The default behavior is a little different. See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Searching#Limiting_results
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
RickK wrote in part:
As it now stands, if we have both [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]] and [[Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] (I don't know about the last one), we definitely don't need [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]], but which one should it redirect to?
Those keeping track of everything should know that all of these 2-day-old stubs have been deleted, and the material is now all on [[Carmen Sandiego]]. But let's pretend that [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] had been around for a long time and couldn't be deleted, and let's pretend that [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]] and [[Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] were substantial articles that we wanted to keep separate from just [[Carmen Sandiego]]. /Then/ where should [[Where in the World/Time is Carmen Sandiego?]] redirect?
The answer is that it shouldn't redirect to either of these. It should instead simply redirect to [[Carmen Sandiego]], the main article from which you could get to the others.
An alternative is to make it a disambiguation page, but that's wise only if it's been used for a long time and you expect people to continue to link to it by accident. Otherwise, a redirect to [[Carmen Sandiego]] is in order.
Of course, in the present situation, where the page is 2 days old, outright deletion should be no problem (and this was in fact done).
-- Toby
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How about '''phagocytes''' circulating thoroughout the body of Wikipedia devouring infections?
Nice... Except, what's a phagocyte? Wikipedia Antibiotics?
See http://press2.nci.nih.gov/sciencebehind/immune/immune17.htm
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How about '''phagocytes''' circulating thoroughout the body of Wikipedia devouring infections?
Ec
That's my favorite so far, even if it was meant as a joke. But we're killing the articles, not the people; we have to make that clear. It implies the collectiveness of wikipedia into one body, which I like LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
For those worried that "firefighter" tends to imply that a wave of newbies is a problem (a raging
fire),
just remember that it was originally the Wikipedia "militia".
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but the damage a small part of them do (either intentional or not). "Guide" is still too paternal for my taste. In my part of the world at least, firefighters play the role of general emergency personell (providing extraction and medical assistance at car crashes and such) and only on relatively rare occasions fight actual fires. IMO that makes them a very positive symbol.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I like "phagocyte" the best. They don't do most of the function in your body, but they're still essential, otherwise you will be diseased with viruses (trolls and vandal attacks other bad stuff that we have to fix). If we dont eat (or tell about how wikipedia is supposed to work and stop vandalising it) all of the viruses, they will kill wikipedia by killing all of our cells (ruining all of our articles) and doing other bad stuff. Firefighter sounds too honorable, but being a white blood cell isn't so honerable, just nessesary. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
For those worried that "firefighter" tends to imply that a wave of newbies is a problem (a raging fire), just remember that it was originally the Wikipedia "militia".
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but the damage a small part of them do (either intentional or not).
So we don't think of them as fires but rather as potential arsonists? I don't mean to say that the term /is/ inherently insulting, but any term that suggests that newbies may cause trouble (and they may) will be capable of being taken the wrong way. (I personally find "firefighter" acceptable.)
"Guide" is still too paternal for my taste. In my part of the world at least, firefighters play the role of general emergency personell (providing extraction and medical assistance at car crashes and such) and only on relatively rare occasions fight actual fires. IMO that makes them a very positive symbol.
"Wikipedia emergency personnel"! ^_^
-- Toby
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 23:01, Toby Bartels wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
For those worried that "firefighter" tends to imply that a wave of newbies is a problem (a raging fire), just remember that it was originally the Wikipedia "militia".
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but the damage a small part of them do (either intentional or not).
So we don't think of them as fires but rather as potential arsonists? I don't mean to say that the term /is/ inherently insulting, but any term that suggests that newbies may cause trouble (and they may) will be capable of being taken the wrong way. (I personally find "firefighter" acceptable.)
Wikipedia Storm Watchers?
Wikipedia Storm Watchers?
No, they're not a storm. That again implies destructiveness. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com