Unfortunately someone lobbed the "proposed policy or guideline" template on the project page. I never intended this to be policy or guideline. It's more a drive towards making more articles accessible to more people. After all, it's better to have an article that can be understood by 1,000 readers rather than none at all. The point here is that it is better still if 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 can understand and learn from it.
As far as how this is meant to pre-suppose what readers want - it only assumes that readers want accurate and informative articles that they can understand and that they enjoy reading. It makes no more assumptions than that. It's not meant to be a panacea to be applied everywhere (and it will not resolve or help the BC/BCE dispute). But it may improve other articles. Take the article on chromosomes, for instance. Don't look at it yet. What would you expect/want such an article to offer?
I think it should tell a reader not familiar with biology what a chromosome is and why it is important. It should explain to that same reader what it does. It may have a small section at the end containing technical details for someone with more advanced knowledge, but really I'd be surprised if there's much that can't be explained to a novice. Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome It tells me nothing. Not what one is, not why it's important. To me (and I guess to anyone else who is unfamiliar with what a chromosome really is) it is meaningless. And it's here that Wikipedia ceases to function as a proper encyclopaedia. I also ask myself, what would it cost to those who already know quite a bit about biology if the article was more accessible. The answer's nothing - no information needs to be deleted, none should be removed. It's just a question of rephrasing so that more can comprehend.
This is what Readers First is about. Encouraging editors of articles to think about their audience - and in particular to aim for as wide an audience as possible. Einstein wrote a best-seller on relativity and Hawkings a best-seller on time (although the later chapters admittedly beat many people). They did show that complicated ideas can be explained to a general population. There's no reason why we should not try to make our articles as accessible to as many as possible.
If there are volunteers who understand chromosomes and who have the patience to explain it to a layman, then let me know and I'll work with them to improve the article so you can see how much better it can get.
Jon (jguk)
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
It's not so bad. It even helpfully glosses some of the technical terms like 'mitosis' and 'histone'.
If you don't already know what DNA and genes are then you probably need to read about those terms first. Both articles are about as accessible to laymen as I would expect in an encyclopaedia.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do better but from my point of view most readers of these articles will already have a basic familiarity with genetics / molecular biology. To those readers wading through an explanation of all terms from first principles (which are what? what knowledge of biology and chemistry should we assume?) in each article would be tiresome.
I agree that we should try to be accessible. And indeed the chromosome article could probably be improved. Britannica's article starts with this definition:
"Microscopic, threadlike part of a cell that carries hereditary information in the form of genes."
That's probably more helpful to newbies than:
"A chromosome (in Greek chroma = colour and soma = body) is, minimally, a very long, continuous piece of DNA, which contains many genes, regulatory elements and other intervening nucleotide sequences."
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm slightly worried that the guideline/policy/project could go overboard. As long as all changes to articles are information-preserving then I wish you good luck.
Regards, Haukur
On 7/29/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
It's not so bad. It even helpfully glosses some of the technical terms like 'mitosis' and 'histone'.
If you don't already know what DNA and genes are then you probably need to read about those terms first. Both articles are about as accessible to laymen as I would expect in an encyclopaedia.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do better but from my point of view most readers of these articles will already have a basic familiarity with genetics / molecular biology. To those readers wading through an explanation of all terms from first principles (which are what? what knowledge of biology and chemistry should we assume?) in each article would be tiresome.
Firstly, I think a fair number of Wikipedia users who would look at a page like chromosome will not be anything like experienced in the field. They will be secondary school (=high school) students beginning their study of genetics. Incidentally, this is exactly how I found Wikipedia, doing some chemistry research into ethanoic acid, finding myself at acetic acid, making a move suggestion on the talk page, and I was thence hooked. But I digress.
Surely what should be done is a simple explanation at the start, for those inexperienced in the field, and a more complex examination later? I am confused about why this would not considered a good idea.
Perhaps "readers first" is not the best title. Perhaps "writing for everyone" would be better. And a key factor of that is putting the easy stuff at the beginning, so that those who don't understand the complexities of the article don't get put off.
We do have to write to the lowest common denominator -- it's part of being an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, some highest common factors (or whatever the appropriate antonym is) can also be written for, but not in a way that compromises the simple understanding of the topic. I think that is the basis of Jon's proposal.
I struggle to find why people would argue with such an aim.
Sam
At 02:31 PM 7/29/2005, Jon wrote:
Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome It tells me nothing. Not what one is, not why it's important. To me (and I guess to anyone else who is unfamiliar with what a chromosome really is) it is meaningless.
Agreed, the article is in sore need of an introduction. It starts out with a technical definition, that's never a good idea. Too many writers still buy into the mathematical textbook way of structuring things based on their formal logical structure. But that doesn't work for an encyclopedia where people jump around between articles.
Chris Lüer wrote:
Agreed, the article is in sore need of an introduction. It starts out with a technical definition, that's never a good idea. Too many writers still buy into the mathematical textbook way of structuring things based on their formal logical structure. But that doesn't work for an encyclopedia where people jump around between articles.
Yeah, I think this could solve many of the problems---have an introduction that's more in layman's terms, rather than insisting that the first sentence be a lengthy and precise technical definition. (The technical definition should still be there, of course.)
I've most often run into this in biology-related articles on plants and animals. If I want to know what a certain flower is, I'm usually not looking for technical information on its method of reproduction as the first bit of information, even if that's how it's classified. I'm more often looking for basic stuff like where it grows, how big it is, what color(s) it is, whether it has any uses (e.g. food or medicinal), and so on. Then if I keep reading it'd be nice to find the detailed information on its taxonomy.
But really I don't think these are *huge* problems. Good introductions are hard to write, so it's not a surprise that many of our articles don't yet have good introductions. A pretty good percentage do, though.
-Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Delirium wrote:
I've most often run into this in biology-related articles on plants and animals. If I want to know what a certain flower is, I'm usually not looking for technical information on its method of reproduction as the first bit of information, even if that's how it's classified. I'm more often looking for basic stuff like where it grows, how big it is, what color(s) it is, whether it has any uses (e.g. food or medicinal), and so on. Then if I keep reading it'd be nice to find the detailed information on its taxonomy.
Ack, I thought that's what {{taxobox}} was for...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
We have a situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to "prove" a point which cannot be made.
Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
- An edit made to MoveOn.Org regarding a Drudge Report document. - A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally partisan writer from the other side.
- A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.
Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot. However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit, although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).
It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who contradicts him.
The WHOLE chain of edits: # (cur) (last) 16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected) # (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer) # (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both accusations i'll give you a third try) # (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.) # (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?)) # (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.) # (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot) # (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.) # (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version) # (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno -- you are not talking -- talking is good.) # (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with new links section and other edits) # (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit warrior bickering) # (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v) # (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by zeno of elea) # (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by anonymous user) # (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 # (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (→Philosophers of Jihad Doctrine)
-The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to stand?!!!!!)
-The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user ("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user Yuber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/P...
I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by BrandonYusufToropov.
Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he is a sock of Enviroknot."
Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.
A. Nony Mouse
A. Nony Mouse (mousyme@gmail.com) [050801 08:42]:
We have a situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Not only are you and Existentializer Enviroknot, it was you both times on IRC today. Either that or your bad luck in DHCP assignments is truly remarkable and suggests you should choose Vegas over Houston.
(I would not normally have let the preceding email through, but it did need the above stated. We can't edit emails in the queue, only accept, reject or discard them.)
- d.
On 7/31/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
A. Nony Mouse (mousyme@gmail.com) [050801 08:42]:
We have a situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Not only are you and Existentializer Enviroknot, it was you both times on IRC today.
No, it wasn't.
Either that or your bad luck in DHCP assignments is truly remarkable and suggests you should choose Vegas over Houston.
No idea what you mean by that.
(I would not normally have let the preceding email through, but it did need the above stated. We can't edit emails in the queue, only accept, reject or discard them.)
Or send them back with nasty little notes attached, it seems.
You need to take a serious chill pill.
A. Nony Mouse
Are you still here? Do you even edit Wikipedia? If yes, surely you have a username/IP you can sign with instead of the troll-like "A. Nony Mouse"? If no, why do you even care? ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" mousyme@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:01 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway
We have a situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to "prove" a point which cannot be made.
Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
- An edit made to MoveOn.Org regarding a Drudge Report document.
- A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally
partisan writer from the other side.
- A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user
BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.
Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot. However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit, although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).
It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who contradicts him.
The WHOLE chain of edits: # (cur) (last) 16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected) # (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer) # (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both accusations i'll give you a third try) # (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.) # (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?)) # (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.) # (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot) # (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.) # (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version) # (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno -- you are not talking -- talking is good.) # (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with new links section and other edits) # (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit warrior bickering) # (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v) # (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by zeno of elea) # (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by anonymous user) # (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 # (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (→Philosophers of Jihad Doctrine)
-The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to stand?!!!!!)
-The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user ("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user Yuber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/P...
I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by BrandonYusufToropov.
Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he is a sock of Enviroknot."
Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.
A. Nony Mouse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)
On 7/31/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
Are you still here? Do you even edit Wikipedia? If yes, surely you have a username/IP you can sign with instead of the troll-like "A. Nony Mouse"? If no, why do you even care? ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" mousyme@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:01 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway
We have a situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to "prove" a point which cannot be made.
Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
- An edit made to MoveOn.Org regarding a Drudge Report document.
- A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally
partisan writer from the other side.
- A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user
BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.
Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot. However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit, although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).
It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who contradicts him.
The WHOLE chain of edits: # (cur) (last) 16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected) # (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer) # (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both accusations i'll give you a third try) # (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.) # (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?)) # (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.) # (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot) # (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.) # (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version) # (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno -- you are not talking -- talking is good.) # (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with new links section and other edits) # (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit warrior bickering) # (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version) # (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v) # (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by zeno of elea) # (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by anonymous user) # (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 # (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (→Philosophers of Jihad Doctrine)
-The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to stand?!!!!!)
-The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user ("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user Yuber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/P...
I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by BrandonYusufToropov.
Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he is a sock of Enviroknot."
Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.
A. Nony Mouse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's symbolic of the fact that I daren't give my real name, knowing the inevitable things David Gerard would do to it if he knew it.
A. Nony Mouse
On 7/31/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's symbolic of the fact that I daren't give my real name, knowing the inevitable things David Gerard would do to it if he knew it.
A. Nony Mouse
On 7/31/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)
I'm sure that there are a few of us who would be interested in your complaints, if we knew that a real editor was involved, but dealing with an anonymous troll makes us unwilling to look any further into it.
Should you wish to disclose your identity, email me via the Wikipedia email system - I shall do likewise to confirm this. I will NOT reveal your identity to anyone else, but I will certainly take your comments more seriously.
Note that should you continue to conceal your identity, you will continue to be treated as a troll, and I for one will ignore any further posts.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Prove your point, and give us it. If he bans you for no reason I'll be happy to unban you. But knowing him, he won't.
Right now your lack of a name meaning anything is making a lot of people think "Troll". ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" mousyme@gmail.com To: "Phroziac" phroziac@gmail.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's symbolic of the fact that I daren't give my real name, knowing the inevitable things David Gerard would do to it if he knew it.
A. Nony Mouse
On 7/31/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l