2009/12/15 Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>:
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