On 8/31/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Details are tricky
Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less.
But note the edit summery (sic)
"99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers"
Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles.
And casual readers never become editors, do they?
Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate
importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed
in sitenotice to be a problem.
Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten
things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course
resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\
This does not mean it would be pointless just a really
OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless."
Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be
largely pointless since > the things you list are not
really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited
by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
) nor is
there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with
editing content anyway.
Should I go on?