gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 13:46:04 UTC 2008
Sticks and stones ...
Chickipedia provides a superior package. Their presentation is much less
cluttered. For a reader it is clearly superior. Now if you can not look
beyond the skin and perceive this, you miss what is in front of you. They
have given more thought on how to present their material, they offer an
attractive package. It is easy to argue that without it they will not do
well, it is as easy to argue that with a cleaner/less cluttered skin we
would do better.
It has been said in the past that a new skin would be a good thing. These
arguments are as good as ever.
On Feb 7, 2008 2:08 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/02/2008, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
> > Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is
> > impressive, but beyond that - gross.
> I propose we refer to it henceforth as "creepypedia".
> - d.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l