Just found I'd sent this to one person instead of the whole list.
oops!
lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
>Then just
add links.
>
>
One word: spaghetti. Just because it's a web,
it doesn't mean it
can't be a cleanly organized web.
Sometimes--in fact frquently--spaghetti is /better/ than structure,
because the subject being described really is spaghetti-like. I
have no problem with organization per se; I reorganized the policy
pages to make things easier to find. But I /don't/ think we should
impose structure for its own sake unless there's a real problem.
Yes, that's true.
So --
why do we insist on putting pipes in links so readers short-cut past
disambiguation pages?
I think that browsing a link "pitch" in an article on music and
discovering other types of pitch in completely different areas of
knowledge is interesting.
It adds breadth to the experience of browsing Wikipedia, which I would
miss if the link in the article on music was "pitch (music)|pitch".
I don't think that an extra page to load is a great price to pay for
that. (and I'm on a modem, so I do appreciate the time taken)
As far as the meat-tree goes, I appreciate that it seems like too much
structure to people. I do still think we're going to need something like
it in the future -- perhaps the presence of my proposal on Meta will
inspire better ideas.
I've just discovered
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style , so I'll make
pages from there if I feel the need to open any forums to debate points
of style & presentation.
tarquin