>>> I guess "old-school" is probably
a good term. I have very little
involvement on the technical side of things. I do
find it a chore to insert
a picture or a table, but I figure it out when I have to. When templates
appear in an article that I am editing, I need to make extra effort just to
track where some of them come from or what they mean. If I, as a person who
has been here for over three years, am having trouble with this, it must be
worse for a non-technical person who just wants to indulge his love of
I too am alarmed at the proposal, as much as I have seen it. I am
technical(well, used to be) 28 years in the computer industry, starting at
the most technical levels of system programming, but over the years
migrating to the role of helping general business users get the best out of
systems, as business analyst, system designer, project manager.
One thing I learned was - never let a technician design a system. It will be
great for the technician's personal uses, but a huge chance it will be
useless to the general users.
Like Ec I find even the present level of codification annoyingly
complicated. Requiring any significant level of codification from general
users would just knock out 99%of the population form being contributors,
asituation we cannot go towards.
From what little I have learned so far of this idea,
including the complete
lack of communication with the user community, the idea of
introducing a new
more technical Ultimate Wiktionary sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to
send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies.
The content may reveal an address you can use.