Somebody wrote: Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly >kettle
of fish. We even already have new poorly >conceived >acronyms.
Yes - and nobody ( I think ) mentioned that most basic of contradictions -- making a static textbook out of a dynamic website. And think of all the trees....
Jimbo:At that point, it *might* be convenient to consolidate our claims in a single entity. But, lawyers at that time would >advise us
the best course of action.
Yes, "give us your money."
Andre Engels, 3Dan : Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't >know. What
I do >know is that I find working on Wikipedia a >rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what >one expects to get from a hobby.
At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. >There you have it.
Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW. It does seem that there is a conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention.. (lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other. Its hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each school both treat their conventions like a tradition.
Steve, 2k
Axel: Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on >pages, or >
even start pages all over at times. I don't think we >should be unhappy at all about deleting, radically rewriting and >refactoring material. Cancerous growth is nice and all,
but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.
Ah, I see. Why does the above remind me of this?:
"Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms. Waiting to put on a black shirt. Waiting to weed out the weaklings.
Would you like to see Britannia Rule again, my friend? All you have to do is follow the worms."
ANON: Your idea is one of the worst and most poorly thought >out that >I
have yet encountered in wikipedia discussions.
Well, like I said, It was food for the lions. If there wasnt any meat on it, y'all wouldnt have jumped on it. The discussion served its purpose, which was to activate some latent idea. I have that idea now, and Im processing it now. I keeping with the above critique, however - I have reconsidered my naive strategy of free speech and will submit it to the class only when I know for a fact that the class will find it agreeable. Go figure that one out.
-Stevertigo-