Trying to respond to your "wiki is not..." statement from this awful
gmail mobile website...
While technically correct, from the user's pov, which is the one the
websites's creators have, wiki is often used as a synonim for
wikipedia. I hear more often „did you search on wiki?” than „did you
search wikipedia?”. I find this distinction is nowadays a little
pedantic.
Strainu
2012/8/8, Peter Gervai <grinapo(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke
<wikipedia(a)zog.org>
wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting
point for discussion:
http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
Yes, interesting.
I asked them about whether they intend to keep it "teling us" instead
of "discussing it" (no email list but an email), and mentioned some
thoughts of mine, which I share here:
- the design fails without javascript [why javascript often bad or
non-applicable is a long thread itself]
- it (often) wastes screen space
- "wiki" is ***NOT*** wikipedia, nor is it wikimedia, nor is it a
brand or a trademark or a name of one entity. it's like saying
"webpage"
- it did not seem to touch one of the most important part deserving
more professional attention: typography.
--
byte-byte,
grin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l