Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of marriage: two people should stay together because they love each other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a messy divorce.
Every open content project has to deal with the threat of forking. Somebody just takes the code or content and starts a competing project. This is good. It keeps the managers of the project on their toes. They will have to do a good job or else the developers will go elsewhere.
Forking is actually less of a threat for Wikipedia than it is for Linux, say: we could just cut and paste the forker's superior articles into Wikipedia. Code reuse between different programs is much more delicate.
We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.
The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."
Axel
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of marriage: two people should stay together because they love each other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a messy divorce.
I'm getting married on December 1.
:-)
Larry
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 23:34, you wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of marriage: two people should stay together because they love each other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a messy divorce.
I'm getting married on December 1.
Larry
Allright, now there's a challenge for all us Wikipedians. We have one month to present Larry and his bride with the definitive set of pages on [[Marriage]] [[Marriage counselling]] [[Marriage customs]] [[Marriage - legal aspects]] [[Marriage - religious aspects]] [[Wedding]]
I'll go set up some preliminary stubs tonight. And no /Talking during the ceremony, please.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
I'm getting married on December 1.
Allright, now there's a challenge for all us Wikipedians. We have one month to present Larry and his bride with the definitive set of pages on [[Marriage]] [[Marriage counselling]] [[Marriage customs]] [[Marriage - legal aspects]] [[Marriage - religious aspects]] [[Wedding]]
I'd like to add:
[[History of marriage]] [[Marriage throughout the world]] or [[Marriage--anthropological aspects]] or something like that. What *should* we call an article that compares the different views and cultural aspects of marriage through the world and history?
Also: [[engagement ring]] [[wedding band]] [[wedding dress]] [[tuxedo]] [[wedding reception]] [[honeymoon]]
I'll add these topics to "requested articles."
--Larry
Congratulations
How about [wedding ceremony] too?
Laura
At 09:13 AM 10/31/2001 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
I'm getting married on December 1.
\ .-'```^```'-. http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html / (\ __ /) \ http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59 | ` / ` |_/| \ ____/ (^Y^)--.-, `'-.......-'w-w__((__) ldb
Axel Boldt wrote:
We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.
Absolutely agreed completely.
The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."
Well, sure! I agree completely. I assume you aren't recommending that as a literal wording. :-)
I would say that we should ask people to put the pretty table, but require them only to put the simplest possible link back.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.
Absolutely agreed completely.
The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."
Well, sure! I agree completely. I assume you aren't recommending that as a literal wording. :-)
I would say that we should ask people to put the pretty table, but require them only to put the simplest possible link back.
I consider this to be a good solution.
Thanks
Hannes Hirzel
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org