Even more alternative solution: move it off of Wikipedia altogether, to the webspace of some brave soul who would be happy to post a list of "articles EB has that Wikipedia does not" (they could even pretend it was an anti-Wikipedia page!).
One could easily imagine a script which would cycle through the articles once every few days and check if they are still red-linked, and move the filled in ones to a different section of the page. Hell, I'll *write* that script if nobody else will. Then we can forget the whole question. If someone will host it.
(I'd host it myself if I had any webspace of my own which could support it)
FF
On 6/25/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
Only if we presume the material is copyvio... So far the only people in our community who have any authority at all on the matter who have responded can not agree.
I'd suggest that it be moved into another wiki to escape the debate, but there is a huge technical reason to have it in wikipedia... Redlinks. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l