On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, AGK <wikiagk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 22 May 2010 02:09, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While that is true, making up names without any
real thought is what
has resulted in the mess we have now where most people have no idea
what the differences are between Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki,
since the names are all so similar. I think taking a little bit of
time to come up with a sensible name is a good idea.
Not to mention Wikia. But really, only those unfamiliar with Wikipedia
get confused between the three.
Ahem
<mea culpa>
O Lord God and all brethren, I must confess that sometimes I made a
typographcal error "Wikipedia Foundation" here and there including on
wikimediafoundation.org ...
</mea culpa>
I totally agree with Tango and Philippe; the more frequently used a
word would be, the less confusable naming is wanted.
And as this really is only a
background/editorial process, the name isn't _as_ significant.
Admittedly, it's new editors who are most likely to not figure out why
their edits haven't appeared yet ("I was told anybody could edit this
site. So why hasn't my improvement showing up? Do I need to refresh
the page? … Argh!!!"… rage quit; we lose an editor). But I don't know
if they're going to care which name we choose, so long as it's
understandable to the layman. YMMV.
AGK
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD