On 23/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The people who add this stuff to articles way out of proportion to the actual subjects of the articles. Your task now: assume you can't hold back the locust swarm with a policy edict; say something to *convince* them this is not a good idea.
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
;)
Really! Really really!
- d.
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
Is it time? Maybe. "Anyone can edit" is really starting to carry a stigma with it. Instead of the intended meaning of "You can help" it's being interpreted as "Idiots are editing".
I would prefer a bit more thought before plunging into "Good writers always welcome" though. Two major flaws for me are that we don't need "good writers" - people adding references, copyediting, updating figures, etc are not "writers" as such; also, even Stephen King is not welcome if he doesn't work within NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR...
I'm not a great sloganist, but something more like "Everyone can help" or "Contribute today" etc would be truer.
Steve
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a great sloganist, but something more like "Everyone can help" or "Contribute today" etc would be truer.
'Good contributors are always welcome', perhaps.
-Matt
On 8/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
'Good contributors are always welcome', perhaps.
The inclusionists would have field day.
geni wrote:
On 8/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
'Good contributors are always welcome', perhaps.
The inclusionists would have field day.
Inclusionism/deletionism are dead. The current factions are policy/process.
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
OH YES PLEASE.
;)
Really! Really really!
- d.
You would probably have to clear that with the communications committee.
On 23/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You would probably have to clear that with the communications committee.
Of course, because it's our major advertising strap line.
- d.
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The people who add this stuff to articles way out of proportion to the actual subjects of the articles. Your task now: assume you can't hold back the locust swarm with a policy edict; say something to *convince* them this is not a good idea.
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
Please not. See the earlier thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049731.html
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
Please not. See the earlier thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049731.html
So how's the result on de: look to you? (Do you contribute much to de: of late?) Should en: pursue the goal of becoming de:? Please answer with as much detail as you can.
- d.
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So how's the result on de: look to you? (Do you contribute much to de: of late?) Should en: pursue the goal of becoming de:?
No we tend to be slightly more upfront about our problems.
On 24/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So how's the result on de: look to you? (Do you contribute much to de: of late?) Should en: pursue the goal of becoming de:?
No we tend to be slightly more upfront about our problems.
"Please answer with as much detail as you can." C'mon, give us more than your usual one-liners.
- d.
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
So how's the result on de: look to you? (Do you contribute much to de: of late?) Should en: pursue the goal of becoming de:?
No we tend to be slightly more upfront about our problems.
"Please answer with as much detail as you can." C'mon, give us more than your usual one-liners.
- d.
Well on en it is generaly accepted that we have a copyright problem. On de less so. Although they don't have fair use issues (in theory) there are certianly other problems.
On en we have a large number of people who go around lableing stubs. de just seems to accept large numbers of rather short articles (incerdenitaly does anyone know why http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Glenn isn't just a redirect?)
Also I'm not seing references even for fairly major articles such as:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock-Festival (a featured article)
Also site appears not be useing MediaWiki:Anonnotice so foundation election is being advertised to non users (they are however useing sitenotice to produce a shorter message which I like).
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
Please not. See the earlier thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049731.html
I didn't throw it out as a really serious suggestion, but I don't agree with your argument.
The disadvantage of the words "anyone can edit" are threefold: 1) It's not completely honest: If you are emotionally handicapped, or otherwise mentally disabled, and cause problems as a result you will ultimately be asked to leave. It's not hard to argue that there are some people who can't edit, at least not for long. This must be the case, because while being inclusive is valuable, it can not override our primary goals. 2) It's too handy an excuse: We frequently get arguments from people who argue that they should be able to do whatever they want (spam, violate NPOV, etc) because they see anyone can edit as a permission to do anything. Changing the words won't stop their bad actions, perhaps, but it will remove this demoralizing exchange that our good editors must suffer. 3) Most importantly, it's a matter of respect. Everyone knows that the world contains a lot of harmful people... and increasingly "anyone can edit" is viewed as in invitation for the worst that humanity has to offer. As I've argued elsewhere, we must show the greatest respect for our own project if we are to expect others to respect it. So while a message saying that we're only interested in good writers will not directly stop bad ones, I believe retiring the words "anyone can edit" will indirectly discourage bad behavior by increasing the overall respectability of the project.
I think this thread has been productive... the proposed alternatives are quite interesting.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The disadvantage of the words "anyone can edit" are threefold:
<snip>
Agree with all that. In a nutshell: "Anyone can edit" was good when we actually needed to encourage people to write something, *anything*. Now, there's no shortage of people writing, we're happy to be a little more selective.
Steve
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Follow De's lead and retire the text that says 'anyone can edit' in favor of 'Good writers always welcome'?
OH YES PLEASE.
Please not. See the earlier thread: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049731.html
I didn't throw it out as a really serious suggestion, but I don't agree with your argument.
You proceed to argue that "anyone can edit" is a bad slogan. But I have never argued that it is not; I simply think that "good authors are always welcome" is considerably worse. I've made this point in the thread referenced above, here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049738.html
Is there a page on the wiki yet to collect slogan ideas?
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
You proceed to argue that "anyone can edit" is a bad slogan. But I have never argued that it is not;
Ah, I almost commented on that.. it seems that your argument is off topic for the thread: the other posts have been discussing the words to use. But later in your post you make comments like:
"We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project."
And I was no longer sure of how you felt about anyone can edit, since you did not clarify your position in the linked post.
In any case, there have been a number of suggestions in this thread. .. I don't think anyone here thinks that using a direct translation from the german is the best way to say the same thing, or even that we need to be saying the exact same thing.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
"We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project."
And I was no longer sure of how you felt about anyone can edit, since you did not clarify your position in the linked post.
"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental. Our slogan should not be engineered as a social filter; it won't work.
Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that grows on you ;-)
Whatever we end up with should express our desire to build a great knowledge resource on the basis of openness, love and respect.
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental.
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
(the wording is clunky)
Our slogan should not be engineered as a social filter; it won't work.
Nah. Every POV pusher considers their contribution marvellous.
- d.
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
Sounds more like a PR attempt to emphasize quality than a captivating slogan expressing a powerful idea. It might be better than "anyone can edit", but it would probably be best to collect ideas on the wiki. Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
Sounds more like a PR attempt to emphasize quality than a captivating slogan expressing a powerful idea. It might be better than "anyone can edit",
Er, yes. Hmmmm.
but it would probably be best to collect ideas on the wiki. Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.
Good one!
- d.
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.
I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it. If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?
In any case, I think the discussion was working just fine prior to you stepping it and directing people.
I feel that "Good writers always welcome" may deter some people who perhaps would feel that their contributions wouldn't be good enough - or worse still make people think that there is a selection process for editors. It sounds like a job advertisement, or an advert for membership to an exclusive club, where all that you say and do will be closely scrutinised - now if that's what Wikipedia has become, then it's a very sad thing - which we definitely should not be telling prospective editors - we need to encourage them to make that first contrib. - and give them helpful feedback where they make mistakes - not discourage them at the first hurdle.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Maxwell Sent: 24 August 2006 17:41 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way of handling "popular culture" references)
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.
I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it. If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?
In any case, I think the discussion was working just fine prior to you stepping it and directing people. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Martin Peeks martin@peeks2.fsworld.co.uk wrote:
I feel that "Good writers always welcome" may deter some people who perhaps would feel that their contributions wouldn't be good enough - or worse still make people think that there is a selection process for editors. It sounds like a job advertisement, or an advert for membership to an exclusive club, where all that you say and do will be closely scrutinised - now if that's what Wikipedia has become, then it's a very sad thing - which we definitely should not be telling prospective editors - we need to encourage them to make that first contrib. - and give them helpful feedback where they make mistakes - not discourage them at the first hurdle.
Definitely. We are not an exclusive club. We're more like a public gathering, where police throw out the few troublemakers.
Steve
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it. If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?
Err, tactfully put. Perhaps we could have a centralised collection of slogan ideas in the Wikipedia: space, rather than in the user space though.
Steve
On 24/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there.
I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it. If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours?
Gee, perhaps reading and thinking modified his views?
In any case, I think the discussion was working just fine prior to you stepping it and directing people.
I don't see that discussion here suddenly stops. A page to collect the results on is useful and hooks the mailing list discussion into on-wiki discussion.
Go on, see if you can take his involvement in the thread well rather than badly.
- d.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it.
I put it in the User: space so it could start as unformatted, raw data. Feel free to move it elsewhere.
G'day David,
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental.
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
(the wording is clunky)
Good *edits* are always welcome?
<snip/>
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental.
"Good contributions always welcome" ? (the wording is clunky)
Good *edits* are always welcome?
I like that. I wonder if it's too jargonish.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Good *edits* are always welcome?
I like that. I wonder if it's too jargonish.
It's still too cliquish for my liking. It's very reserved, like "Well, sir, I guess you can come in, but don't disturb the others, ok?" It has a very strong implied negative: "Bad edits are not welcome" which I don't think needs to be stated at this level. I really don't like the tone, I guess.
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
"Made by people like you"?
Or even just a tweak to the current line like "Anyone can have a go" - again, we tone down the implied right of editing: we only promise to let them try once.
Steve
G'day Steve,
"Made by people like you"?
Or even just a tweak to the current line like "Anyone can have a go" - again, we tone down the implied right of editing: we only promise to let them try once.
"Wikipedia - be in it!"
(That sounds familiar for some reason ...)
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
On 25/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
"contributors" or "contributions"?
On 25/08/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
"contributors" or "contributions"?
Ooops, hit send too soon.
"New contribut(ors|ions) wanted" has the unfortunate effect that - to me, at least - it reads somewhat as though we're only looking for new articles, not for new work on existing ones.
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
True. "Information wanted"?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
True. "Information wanted"?
Wrong.
You can make a house out of bricks, but a pile of bricks does not make a house.
You can make knowledge from information, but a pile of information does not make knowledge.
What's Jimbo's famous quote? "Imagine a world where the sum of human knowledge was available to everyone in their own language - that's what we're doing"?
"Anyone can edit" is misleading. "You could be part of"?
On 26/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
True. "Information wanted"?
Wrong. You can make a house out of bricks, but a pile of bricks does not make a house. You can make knowledge from information, but a pile of information does not make knowledge.
Turn information into knowledge.
- d.
On 26 Aug 2006, at 11:48, David Gerard wrote:
On 26/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
True. "Information wanted"?
Wrong. You can make a house out of bricks, but a pile of bricks does not make a house. You can make knowledge from information, but a pile of information does not make knowledge.
Turn information into knowledge.
I think this doesn't reflect the broader aim of WMF which is to make a repository of free information.
So how about: Join the Information Revolution
On 26/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Turn information into knowledge.
I think this doesn't reflect the broader aim of WMF which is to make a repository of free information.
So how about: Join the Information Revolution
Every time I see that phrase I think of Ken MacLeod's IWWWW, the "Information Workers of the World Wide Web"...
"Abolition of the encyclopedia system!", perhaps.
</obscurity>
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
You're technically correct, and those who deal with the press should keep the distinction in mind. Neverthess getting everyone to adopt the usage may be an exercise in futility.
Perhaps a crib sheet of definitions and distinctions for those dealing with the press could be a useful page on Meta.
Ec
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).
See .sig... :)
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental.
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
(the wording is clunky)
Good *edits* are always welcome?
"Improvements are..."?
On 25 Aug 2006, at 11:39, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental.
"Good contributions always welcome" ?
(the wording is clunky)
Good *edits* are always welcome?
"Improvements are..."?
I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or outsiders?
How about something along a slightly different track: "Internet wisdom made accessible"
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or outsiders?
Ideally we want something that's 110% intuitively obviously brilliant for both. I didn't say it'd be easy ...
- d.
On 25 Aug 2006, at 11:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or outsiders?
Ideally we want something that's 110% intuitively obviously brilliant for both. I didn't say it'd be easy ...
How about: "Wikipedia. Turns information into knowledge."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
How about: "Wikipedia. Turns information into knowledge."
Phrase as imperative:
"Wikipedia: Turn information into knowledge."
Yeah, that's the sort of thing an editor could have stuck on the wall above their monitor.
- d.
G'day David,
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
How about: "Wikipedia. Turns information into knowledge."
Phrase as imperative:
"Wikipedia: Turn information into knowledge."
Yeah, that's the sort of thing an editor could have stuck on the wall above their monitor.
I likes it. (I wonder how Stephen feels about your change, but I assume he'll enjoy it.)
Okay, Comms Committee member, go push buttons and fiddle with knobs and so on until it happens.
G'day Stephen,
On 25 Aug 2006, at 11:39, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Good *edits* are always welcome?
"Improvements are..."?
I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or outsiders?
Fair enough. I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore!
How about something along a slightly different track: "Internet wisdom made accessible"
"You're the man now, dog!"
Internet "wisdom" will be the death of us all. Wikipedia, also, is not necessarily confined to the Internet. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website; wiki and hypertext is a tool, not a core principle. It may be a *site* on the *web* using *hypertext*, but ...
I like Andrew's idea of "improve", but "Improvements are always welcome" doesn't sound much better than "Good contributions", to me. How does "Please help us improve" sound?
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Fair enough. I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore!
How about something along a slightly different track: "Internet wisdom made accessible"
"You're the man now, dog!"
Combine them:
"You're the editor."
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Fair enough. I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore!
How about something along a slightly different track: "Internet wisdom made accessible"
"You're the man now, dog!"
Combine them:
"You're the editor."
"You contribute. *We* decide."
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
"You're the editor."
"You contribute. *We* decide."
Lol!
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Fair enough. I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore!
How about something along a slightly different track: "Internet wisdom made accessible"
"You're the man now, dog!"
Combine them:
"You're the editor."
Seriously now: "Help us help you!"
(Or some variant. Inspiration could be drawn from "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" if necessary.)
On 26/08/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
(Or some variant. Inspiration could be drawn from "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" if necessary.)
"I'd like to buy the world a Britannica DVD."
- d.