Andrew Dunbar wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: > cookfire wrote:
Timwi wrote: I wouldn't call it that. In fact I'm glad you would want to help us with this issue. It's something we have been asking for since the beginning of the English Wiktionary. It wasn't possible back then because of other priorities for the developers. It's a pity there is such vocal opposition to it now and I feel bad because I started by objecting. It is true that there might be even better ways of dealing with the issues, but I'm sure that flipping a switch is going to be a lot easier to accomplish than having to add functionality to the software to do it in those better ways.
There's no need to be short-sighted and settle for quick fixes just because they are "a lot easier". I'm sure that's not the kind of thinking employed by the founders of the OED or Websters.
If Wiktionary is a good project, and I'm sure we all believe it is, then it will survive long enough for the real fixes to come along. Cleaning up after the side- effects of the quick fix and cleaning up again in the future when a solid fix comes along will be a pointless drain on the time and patience of the contributors.
Also, going with the quick fix now will reduce our chances of getting the developers to implement a solid fix later on, because they will believe they had already fixed the problem.
Polyglot
How a vote is phrased can make a difference to its success. Putting three questions into one can be a recipe for failure; it gives opponents three separate issues that can be used to oppose the whole thing.
Or, those you label "opponents" might have actually agreed on the main point, and taken issue with what else was going to happen because of the change. Since this is what they have said I don't know why you feel the need to put it the way you have.
It's a fact that the vote lumped three issues together. The fact becomes that they voted no on all three points.
The opposition was as much to the proposed script as to de-capitalizing the first letter.
Or, the "opposition" was not opposed to de-capitalizing the first letter in a better way, and were much more opposed to the script, depending on which member of "the opposition", since each was an individual with a different perspective.
My support is for the first letter de-capitalization. I have no attachment to the script. It looks as though it would do the job, but another method could work just as well.
I first proposed freeing up the first letter on Dec. 18, 2002, and I'm still convinced that it's the best way to go. Unfortunately the principal opponent doesn't seem to understand dictionaries.
It may be even more unfortunate that some feel the need to put down others rather than improve their arguments or consider that other opinions might be valid and not just the "contrary ignoramuses" who have been depicted in the email I'm replying to now.
"Ignoramus" is your word.