On 01/09/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Details are tricky
Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less.
But note the edit summery (sic)
"99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers" Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles. And casual readers never become editors, do they?
Wrong edit summery.
Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate significant global importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed in sitenotice to be a problem.
Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\
ten things in not in sitenotice
This does not mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea.
OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless."
Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be largely pointless since > the things you list are not really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ) nor is there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with editing content anyway.
Should I go on? -stevertigo
There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While anons can and do fix spellings stylistic issues and hatnotes are not something I see them dealing with much.