David Gerard wrote:
2009/12/15 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
As grating as Andrew Keen but with added tendentious logic? Andrew Lih for people who still really don't get it? By the way, I know nothing about the Andrew Dalby book mentioned on the programme, but he talked quite reasonably (Wales isn't a philosopher while Sanger is, but you could argue that one), with the negative restricted to saying enWP is not going to get much better.
Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) is one of us, so at least knows what he's talking about!
It's not clear what "much better" means for en:wp. "Better" is attainable, but what would being notably better than we are look like?
(I think the last big changes were (a) useful as a general encyclopedia, which we weren't five years ago except in limited areas; (ii) a culture of references, which was a b*gg*r to get started. By the way, I created the {{unref}} template.)
- d.
And a beautiful template it is David.
I feel the programme was {{unref}}'ed....
For example, it seemed to suggest that Jimbo was responsible as Editor in Chief.
Gordon