Hoi, Sticks and stones ...
Chickipedia provides a superior package. Their presentation is much less cluttered. For a reader it is clearly superior. Now if you can not look beyond the skin and perceive this, you miss what is in front of you. They have given more thought on how to present their material, they offer an attractive package. It is easy to argue that without it they will not do well, it is as easy to argue that with a cleaner/less cluttered skin we would do better.
It has been said in the past that a new skin would be a good thing. These arguments are as good as ever. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 7, 2008 2:08 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
I propose we refer to it henceforth as "creepypedia".
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l