On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
You aren't allowing for the typical length of intense participation in *any* online environment typically being 18-24 months (MMORPGs, etc), and that the stated reason may not be the reason.
(Protip: someone who gets blocked as much as you do should consider the possibility there are things they fundamentally don't understand about the environment.)
- d.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
You aren't allowing for the typical length of intense participation in *any* online environment typically being 18-24 months (MMORPGs, etc), and that the stated reason may not be the reason.
This, incidentally, allows for a third option to Abd's dilemma: an editor can just be patient.
Here's a personal example, lightly fictionalized (because I know that if I specify the page and edits, *someone* will take it upon themselves to undo them just to make a point).
3 or 4 years ago, there was a certain controversy, which got written up into an article. The article included a chronology with referencing/links to the site which first noticed the discrepancy which started the whole shebang.
This site was considerably disapproved of, and the Powers That Be decreed that links to it were banned, and of course, without the referencing links, the initial entries in the chronology were now unreferenced & OR* & to be removed. Bans were spoken of.
I gave up on the subject, and instead added a reminder to revisit it in a few years' time - roughly 2 of the canonical cycles.
That timer fired a few months ago. I took the material as it was in the last removal, and added it back in.
Not one person has commented about or opposed the addition.
* I'll note in passing that OR has policy-creeped considerably since the early days; certainly the people who originally were invoking OR against Time Cube or Archimedes Plutonium or the electric universe would be a little surprised at current usage.
Systematically arranged encyclopedias: Well, checking my references, a little more than 6 vols., but on the principle:
There were.
1. Encyclopedie francaise, 1935-66 was published in 21 topical volumes. , with the contents in each arranged by topic, with an alphabetic index to each volume: titles were such as v.2 Physics v.3 Astronomy 4. Life ... v.19 Philosophy & religion. in other words, 21 long articles. ( issued loose-leaf for updating, rather than in bound vols. )
2.Encyclopedie de la Pleaide, 1955- 26 vols. Examples: v.18 Biology, v., 20 Geography
3. In Spanish Enciclopia Labor" , 1955-60, in 9 vols., including v. 7 Literature and music, v. 8, arts, sports, games
4. In Dutch, eerste nederlandse systematisch ingericht encyclopedie 1946-53 9.v. e.g. v.2 literature and the arts, v.3, History sociology & politics
and in English: Oxford Junior encyclopedia. 1964 13 v. , such as v.8: Engineering, v.9 recreation , but with the articles arranged alphabetically within each vol.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
You aren't allowing for the typical length of intense participation in *any* online environment typically being 18-24 months (MMORPGs, etc), and that the stated reason may not be the reason.
This, incidentally, allows for a third option to Abd's dilemma: an editor can just be patient.
Here's a personal example, lightly fictionalized (because I know that if I specify the page and edits, *someone* will take it upon themselves to undo them just to make a point).
3 or 4 years ago, there was a certain controversy, which got written up into an article. The article included a chronology with referencing/links to the site which first noticed the discrepancy which started the whole shebang.
This site was considerably disapproved of, and the Powers That Be decreed that links to it were banned, and of course, without the referencing links, the initial entries in the chronology were now unreferenced & OR* & to be removed. Bans were spoken of.
I gave up on the subject, and instead added a reminder to revisit it in a few years' time - roughly 2 of the canonical cycles.
That timer fired a few months ago. I took the material as it was in the last removal, and added it back in.
Not one person has commented about or opposed the addition.
- I'll note in passing that OR has policy-creeped considerably since
the early days; certainly the people who originally were invoking OR against Time Cube or Archimedes Plutonium or the electric universe would be a little surprised at current usage.
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l