On 6/14/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
The main motivation for retaining the article for all this time seems to me to have been spite.
[some very mature and considered responses deleted for the sake of space]
I concede much of that. The feeling that Brandt has, or might be seen to have, achieved an end by means of threats, doesn't persuade me but might persuade others.
My own feeling that someone as obscure as Brandt could rightly feel harassed by the presence of an article about him is persuasive to me, but may be tempered by other considerations in the minds of other people of good faith.
And so on.
But there is an element of spite, and digging in of heels. I think that's why this proposed solution is being endorsed by so many people. We're all flocking to say "the information may be valiable and should sink of swim on its merits, but the history of this individual is not important" because we feel, instinctively, that this is a controversy that has harmed us as a community and as people. "Do no harm" cuts both ways.
And that point, having been reached, Utterly and irrevocably changes the rules for WIkipedia. Strict proceduralism is a busted flush, too rigid ever to be workable. Elements of the real world enter slowly but surely into the formerly insulated world of Wikipedia: real living people don't like rubbish being written about them, obscure real living people who are involved in a nine day wonder or silly season story don't get memorialized. Victims of internet memes aren't to be victimized further here.
This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are disquieted by it. We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're growing up.
On 0, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com scribbled: ...
And that point, having been reached, Utterly and irrevocably changes the rules for WIkipedia. Strict proceduralism is a busted flush, too rigid ever to be workable. Elements of the real world enter slowly but surely into the formerly insulated world of Wikipedia: real living people don't like rubbish being written about them, obscure real living people who are involved in a nine day wonder or silly season story don't get memorialized. Victims of internet memes aren't to be victimized further here.
This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are disquieted by it. We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're growing up.
It's easy to defend using simplistic quotes.
Why is growing up so good? It means we are dourer, slower, more close-minded, closer to the grave & closer to shutting up and sclerotifying. It is in youth our great works are accomplished.
"To grow older is to grow more wicked." "Never trust anyone over 30."
-- Gwern industrial intelligence H.N.P. SUAEWICS Juiliett Class Submarine Locks qrss loch
On 6/14/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote: It is in youth our great works are accomplished.
If you're a mathematician or an athlete, yes. Otherwise not as a rule, especially not with writing.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/14/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote: It is in youth our great works are accomplished.
If you're a mathematician or an athlete, yes. Otherwise not as a rule, especially not with writing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While you bring up athletes...
We currently have a -lot- of permastubs on athletes, especially those who played professionally but may not have ever started for anyone. As a rule, these articles tend to be very lightly watched (if at all), and I would imagine vandalism to one could stay for quite some time.
What would anyone think of merging such things into, say, "List of players on the 1999 San Francisco 49ers"? Obviously, we would still have separate articles on Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, but we could then put the third-stringers and such into a place where it would be more watched, less prone to vandalism, and not presented as a full biography of the person.
Thoughts?
On 15/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
While you bring up athletes... We currently have a -lot- of permastubs on athletes, especially those who played professionally but may not have ever started for anyone. As a rule, these articles tend to be very lightly watched (if at all), and I would imagine vandalism to one could stay for quite some time. What would anyone think of merging such things into, say, "List of players on the 1999 San Francisco 49ers"? Obviously, we would still have separate articles on Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, but we could then put the third-stringers and such into a place where it would be more watched, less prone to vandalism, and not presented as a full biography of the person. Thoughts?
What would be most useful to the reader looking up that person? It is useful to know they haven't done anything else notable.
I submit that it greatly reduces usefulness for a name to redirect to a 60kb list the reader then has to go searching through to find the same information.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
While you bring up athletes... We currently have a -lot- of permastubs on athletes, especially those who played professionally but may not have ever started for anyone. As a rule, these articles tend to be very lightly watched (if at all), and I would imagine vandalism to one could stay for quite some time. What would anyone think of merging such things into, say, "List of players on the 1999 San Francisco 49ers"? Obviously, we would still have separate articles on Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, but we could then put the third-stringers and such into a place where it would be more watched, less prone to vandalism, and not presented as a full biography of the person. Thoughts?
What would be most useful to the reader looking up that person? It is useful to know they haven't done anything else notable.
I submit that it greatly reduces usefulness for a name to redirect to a 60kb list the reader then has to go searching through to find the same information.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
In theory yes. In practice that doesn't work in all browsers and hits problems when people redo the headings in the list.
geni wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
In theory yes. In practice that doesn't work in all browsers and hits problems when people redo the headings in the list.
{{sofixit}}
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
In theory yes. In practice that doesn't work in all browsers and hits problems when people redo the headings in the list.
{{sofixit}}
LOL, not sure if that was serious or a joke, but fixing it would require what, infiltrating all browser companies and making their products not suck?
On 6/15/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
LOL, not sure if that was serious or a joke, but fixing it would require what, infiltrating all browser companies and making their products not suck?
Actually it would only require infiltrating apple. My understanding is that no else of any significance currently markets a browser that can't handle redirects to section titles.
That part of the problem can be solved by waiting a few years.
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
LOL, not sure if that was serious or a joke, but fixing it would require what, infiltrating all browser companies and making their products not suck?
Actually it would only require infiltrating apple. My understanding is that no else of any significance currently markets a browser that can't handle redirects to section titles.
That part of the problem can be solved by waiting a few years.
Fair enough. I still think it's a lot cleaner and more usable to type in a subject and have a paragraph about the subject than to be redirected to a long page with lots of subjects and be taken to the middle of the article where the paragraph about that particular subject is located.
Of course this pet peeve pales in comparison to my hatred of no longer being able to click on a reference and get taken to the url of the reference. Right click, open link in new tab...try to figure out why the same page just got reloaded... It's a neat idea, but annoying more often than useful in my experience :)
On 6/15/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Fair enough. I still think it's a lot cleaner and more usable to type in a subject and have a paragraph about the subject than to be redirected to a long page with lots of subjects and be taken to the middle of the article where the paragraph about that particular subject is located.
It's been something we have been using for years in relation to fictional subjects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Star_Wars_characters
For fictional subjects it works quite well since the primary properties of that subject are fairly easy to define. The Xeelee are only a very powerful species within Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence that is the only group they can really be placed in.
Hodgesaargh only exists within the context of the discworld books. Thus placing him in a list of Discworld characters is not a problem.
People tend to be more difficult.
An Olympic athlete may well appear in two games. A footballer may play for many clubs over many seasons and far to many will have played for any one club to have say "list of minor liverpool players".
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Fair enough. I still think it's a lot cleaner and more usable to type in a subject and have a paragraph about the subject than to be redirected to a long page with lots of subjects and be taken to the middle of the article where the paragraph about that particular subject is located.
It's been something we have been using for years in relation to fictional subjects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Star_Wars_characters
Yes, it's actually a common occurance on a wiki that poor designs get propagated for years before they're fixed. Think {{spoiler}}, for instance.
For fictional subjects it works quite well since the primary properties of that subject are fairly easy to define. The Xeelee are only a very powerful species within Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence that is the only group they can really be placed in.
So [[Davik Kang]] redirecting to [[List of minor Star Wars characters]] is better than [[Davik Kang]] as an article unto itself? Why?
It's not a big deal, so I only complain about it because it was already brought up, but if I wanted to find out about [[Davik Kang]] why would I want to be taken to a long page full of minor Star Wars characters? IW links don't work. What links here doesn't work. Categories often don't work. It makes no sense at all to me. The only argument that I can see being made is that [[Davik Kang]] isn't a notable enough topic, as though people use Wikipedia to decide whether or not a topic is notable or something. It doesn't make sense.
Hodgesaargh only exists within the context of the discworld books. Thus placing him in a list of Discworld characters is not a problem.
People tend to be more difficult.
Yes, it's much worse with people IMO. I especially hate it when one person redirects to another person.
An Olympic athlete may well appear in two games. A footballer may play for many clubs over many seasons and far to many will have played for any one club to have say "list of minor liverpool players".
-- geni
Anthony wrote:
It's not a big deal, so I only complain about it because it was already brought up, but if I wanted to find out about [[Davik Kang]] why would I want to be taken to a long page full of minor Star Wars characters? IW links don't work. What links here doesn't work. Categories often don't work. It makes no sense at all to me. The only argument that I can see being made is that [[Davik Kang]] isn't a notable enough topic, as though people use Wikipedia to decide whether or not a topic is notable or something. It doesn't make sense.
That's the main explanation that I figure is the case. Personally, I see these giant lists mainly as stopgap "refuges" to prevent deletion and allow articles to continue developing in some fashion until such time as we have the tools to allow them to exist separately in a manner that satisfies deletionists.
Yes, it's much worse with people IMO. I especially hate it when one person redirects to another person.
Just last night I was directed to a situation where an article about an author survived AfD but was redirected to an article about the main book he was notable for, and then the book was speedy-deleted for "lack of notability."
I've restored the book article. Not sure whether to restore the author article as well, but that's something non-admins can do so I leave it in the hands of others.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Yes, it's much worse with people IMO. I especially hate it when one person redirects to another person.
Just last night I was directed to a situation where an article about an author survived AfD but was redirected to an article about the main book he was notable for, and then the book was speedy-deleted for "lack of notability."
I've restored the book article. Not sure whether to restore the author article as well, but that's something non-admins can do so I leave it in the hands of others.
Perhaps in such cases where an AfD results in a merge, that whole discussion should be considered a part of any comparable discussion for the article to which the merger is made.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Just last night I was directed to a situation where an article about an author survived AfD but was redirected to an article about the main book he was notable for, and then the book was speedy-deleted for "lack of notability."
I've restored the book article. Not sure whether to restore the author article as well, but that's something non-admins can do so I leave it in the hands of others.
Perhaps in such cases where an AfD results in a merge, that whole discussion should be considered a part of any comparable discussion for the article to which the merger is made.
That would be nice. There have been other instances in the past where an AfD called for a merge, the merge was done, and then within a short period all trace of the merged material was removed from the destination article. On a few occasions I've wound up restoring the old article since the AfD wasn't being followed anyway, but I suspect the main reason I've got away with it so far is because people just haven't noticed.
Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
In theory yes. In practice that doesn't work in all browsers and hits problems when people redo the headings in the list.
{{sofixit}}
LOL, not sure if that was serious or a joke, but fixing it would require what, infiltrating all browser companies and making their products not suck?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Was more intended around "if the heading changes the redirect won't work to the heading anymore." In practice, I've seen this happen very, very rarely, and the redirect can certainly be changed to match the new header (fixing it). As to browsers, I've never had such a problem with Firefox, I just tested with Epiphany and it worked fine, and I've never had any such problems with IE. (Can't test that now, but I might try it next time I use a public Win machine.) What does it -not- work with? I've seen that bogeyman brought up when merges were discussed before, but no one seems able to say -what- it doesn't work with.
On 6/16/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Was more intended around "if the heading changes the redirect won't work to the heading anymore." In practice, I've seen this happen very, very rarely, and the redirect can certainly be changed to match the new header (fixing it). As to browsers, I've never had such a problem with Firefox, I just tested with Epiphany and it worked fine, and I've never had any such problems with IE. (Can't test that now, but I might try it next time I use a public Win machine.) What does it -not- work with? I've seen that bogeyman brought up when merges were discussed before, but no one seems able to say -what- it doesn't work with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Redirect...
Now while over all I have no problem with this approach (I will probably create a minor UK canal page at some point) I do think it important to understand it's limitations.
geni wrote:
On 6/16/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Was more intended around "if the heading changes the redirect won't work to the heading anymore." In practice, I've seen this happen very, very rarely, and the redirect can certainly be changed to match the new header (fixing it). As to browsers, I've never had such a problem with Firefox, I just tested with Epiphany and it worked fine, and I've never had any such problems with IE. (Can't test that now, but I might try it next time I use a public Win machine.) What does it -not- work with? I've seen that bogeyman brought up when merges were discussed before, but no one seems able to say -what- it doesn't work with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Redirect...
Now while over all I have no problem with this approach (I will probably create a minor UK canal page at some point) I do think it important to understand it's limitations.
Ah. Safari. (Don't use Macs, don't like Macs, but I suppose that is a consideration.) Still, if their development builds are working with it, it won't be too long until they have that fixed in the stable version.
Todd Allen wrote:
Was more intended around "if the heading changes the redirect won't work to the heading anymore." In practice, I've seen this happen very, very rarely, and the redirect can certainly be changed to match the new header (fixing it). As to browsers, I've never had such a problem with Firefox, I just tested with Epiphany and it worked fine, and I've never had any such problems with IE. (Can't test that now, but I might try it next time I use a public Win machine.) What does it -not- work with? I've seen that bogeyman brought up when merges were discussed before, but no one seems able to say -what- it doesn't work with.
It's unrealistic to expect that people will create a proper redirect every time they change a heading.
Ec
On 16/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Was more intended around "if the heading changes the redirect won't work to the heading anymore." In practice, I've seen this happen very, very rarely, and the redirect can certainly be changed to match the new header (fixing it).
Whilst this is trivial to do, it requires knowing there is a redirect to fix - and I don't know about you, but I don't manually check every redirect page for an article any time I tidy the section headers.
Section redirects tend to slowly die off over time, and link to the general page. Perhaps we ought to just redefine that as a feature :-)
Todd Allen wrote:
geni wrote:
On 6/15/07, Todd Allen wrote:
Why does everyone always claim that readers would have to "sort through" lists? Did no one get the memo that redirects can now anchor to a heading within the article? No one would have to "search through" a large list if the redirects are set up properly, they get taken right to it.
In theory yes. In practice that doesn't work in all browsers and hits problems when people redo the headings in the list.
{{sofixit}}
Geni does raise a simply stated but important problem. When you think about it, it is much bigger than one would at first imagine. Now, when we rename an aricle we retain a redirect from the old page. How do we extend something of the sort for headings to deal with broken links?
Ec
On 6/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Geni does raise a simply stated but important problem. When you think about it, it is much bigger than one would at first imagine. Now, when we rename an aricle we retain a redirect from the old page. How do we extend something of the sort for headings to deal with broken links?
In the sort term the problem can be managed by running searches on database dumps for broken redirects to titles and listing them for fixing.
Long term we would need changes to mediawiki but I'm no programmer and I can't see any way of doing it that isn't database intensive or would require some fundimental changes to the way the software works.
On 6/14/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
While you bring up athletes...
We currently have a -lot- of permastubs on athletes, especially those who played professionally but may not have ever started for anyone. As a rule, these articles tend to be very lightly watched (if at all), and I would imagine vandalism to one could stay for quite some time.
What would anyone think of merging such things into, say, "List of players on the 1999 San Francisco 49ers"? Obviously, we would still have separate articles on Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, but we could then put the third-stringers and such into a place where it would be more watched, less prone to vandalism, and not presented as a full biography of the person.
Thoughts?
Besides the fact that it would make the encyclopedia much less useful, I think there's a good chance it'd have the opposite effect on vandalism detection compared to what you say. More edits to a page makes it harder to go through each one, and an article which is 95% correct is harder to detect than one which is 50% correct.
IMO there is a big difference between a "short article" and a "stub". "The community believes that stubs are far from worthless; they are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete. In other words, they are short or insufficient of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's resourcefulness." - from [[Wikipedia:Stub]], back before people came in and ruined it.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 6/14/07, Todd Allen wrote:
We currently have a -lot- of permastubs on athletes, especially those who played professionally but may not have ever started for anyone. As a rule, these articles tend to be very lightly watched (if at all), and I would imagine vandalism to one could stay for quite some time.
What would anyone think of merging such things into, say, "List of players on the 1999 San Francisco 49ers"? Obviously, we would still have separate articles on Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, but we could then put the third-stringers and such into a place where it would be more watched, less prone to vandalism, and not presented as a full biography of the person.
Besides the fact that it would make the encyclopedia much less useful, I think there's a good chance it'd have the opposite effect on vandalism detection compared to what you say. More edits to a page makes it harder to go through each one, and an article which is 95% correct is harder to detect than one which is 50% correct.
Good point. Effective vandals tend to be subtle about their activities. It was only by chance that I discovered the comment that [[Bat Masterson]] limped because he had been shot in the penis rather than the pelvis. Using fear of vandalism as a basis for deciding what we do with otherwise sane articles puts emphasis on an issue other than why we have a Wikipedia in the first place.
IMO there is a big difference between a "short article" and a "stub". "The community believes that stubs are far from worthless; they are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete. In other words, they are short or insufficient of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's resourcefulness." - from [[Wikipedia:Stub]], back before people came in and ruined it.
Exactly! A good stub encourages people to add to it. A complete absence minimizes the likelihood that anything will ever be done about the subject. When it comes to athletes one needs to remember that even the third stringers were good enough to make it onto the roster of a major league sports teams.
Ec
On 6/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
IMO there is a big difference between a "short article" and a "stub". "The community believes that stubs are far from worthless; they are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete. In other words, they are short or insufficient of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's resourcefulness." - from [[Wikipedia:Stub]], back before people came in and ruined it.
Exactly! A good stub encourages people to add to it. A complete absence minimizes the likelihood that anything will ever be done about the subject. When it comes to athletes one needs to remember that even the third stringers were good enough to make it onto the roster of a major league sports teams.
Sometimes I wonder if it could ever catch on to have a wiki encyclopedia where every single article fits in a single normal sized screenful of information. The article would be a true summary, not a list of links to subarticles. Instead of a table of contents there could be a list of subpages - on the side and not obnoxiously placed within the article using {{Main}} tags.
Obviously Wikipedia could never be adapted that severely, but I think there are a whole lot of articles which go too far in the opposite direction. Actually, I remember reading a appropriate comment about it yesterday in the [[Wikipedia Blog]](*). "Longest articles on Wikipedia. Also known as: The Museum of Misguided Merges." http://wikip.blogspot.com/2007/06/longest-articles-on-wikipedia.html It's not actually an accurate statement though, because most of the longest articles are lists and not an example of the situation I'm thinking of.
(*) Redlink left intentionally in the hopes that someone will write an article about it, and that it won't get inappropriately deleted under A7. Wishful thinking, I know.
On 6/15/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it could ever catch on to have a wiki encyclopedia where every single article fits in a single normal sized screenful of information. The article would be a true summary, not a list of links to subarticles. Instead of a table of contents there could be a list of subpages - on the side and not obnoxiously placed within the article using {{Main}} tags.
I did this with a text-based UNIX user help information program called "info" in the late 1980s - working screen real estate was 23x80, no exceptions, and I used a tiny little hypertexting mechanism which along with the header info on each article display cut useable space down to 21x80.
Live in 1680 characters gets challenging, but it was amazing how much we could do with it...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:43:15 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Live in 1680 characters gets challenging, but it was amazing how much we could do with it...
Back in the day I worked on a program to control asphalt manufacturing plant in four banks of 128k RAM. It could make a ton of asphalt at 150 C every seven seconds, and the controller was pretty accurate.
Nowadays that much RAM won't run a word processor.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:43:15 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Live in 1680 characters gets challenging, but it was amazing how much we could do with it...
Back in the day I worked on a program to control asphalt manufacturing plant in four banks of 128k RAM. It could make a ton of asphalt at 150 C every seven seconds, and the controller was pretty accurate.
Nowadays that much RAM won't run a word processor.
Heh. Very different problem from condensed text writing exercises, but I've been there... I wrote a video game for the 2k base memory on a TS1000.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:05:37 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. Very different problem from condensed text writing exercises, but I've been there... I wrote a video game for the 2k base memory on a TS1000.
Bah! Kids today...
I just installed 12TB of SAN storage and six quad-core VMWare servers, the greedy bastards have used half of it already.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:05:37 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. Very different problem from condensed text writing exercises, but I've been there... I wrote a video game for the 2k base memory on a TS1000.
Bah! Kids today...
I just installed 12TB of SAN storage and six quad-core VMWare servers, the greedy bastards have used half of it already.
I'm consulting at nVidia in IT right now. That's about a day's worth of new servers and a week's worth of storage... (well, 10 days to 2 weeks).
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
If you're a mathematician or an athlete, yes. Otherwise not as a rule, especially not with writing.
The history of popular music suggests that writing ability goes pretty fast as well.
We know that married scientists go down hill by about 30.
on 6/14/07 6:41 PM, Gwern Branwen at gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Why is growing up so good? It means we are dourer, slower, more close-minded, closer to the grave & closer to shutting up and sclerotifying.
Speak for yourself :-).
Age has given me the arrogance; experience has given me the urgency.
Marc
Tony Sidaway wrote:
This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are disquieted by it. We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're growing up.
Or we're in the grip of yet another article witch-hunt, focused on BLPs this time rather than webcomics or schools or whatever the other subject areas have been in the past. A matter of POV.
On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are disquieted by it. We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're growing up.
Still a bit early to say for sure, but things seems to have been handled more maturely this time around compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand...
So to that extent, I agree with you.