[WikiEN-l] Twitterpedia will win

[Jay Litwyn]

"George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:38a7bf7c0905051122p21b2e13bn6d44e860fee4f127 at mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> George Herbert wrote:
>> > I developed an entire user help system once which required that all
>> > information be one 23x80 character text frame, including a line of
>> > navigation info and a line of the next prompt (useful: 21x80).  That 
>> > was
>> > quite a challenge.
>> >
>> > Wrapping a useful amount of encyclopedic info into Tweets is possible 
>> > but
>> > extremely painful.  Especially as there's no links.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Even if it could be done, the Wikipedia system of rules would not be so
>> amenable.
>
>
> The english Wikipedia system is predicated on a high-multimedia potential,
> for our purposes unlimited length format, where ability to source detailed
> information and have long arguments about prominence of key ideas in the
> article is a good thing.
>
> Having only 140 characters to work with (or even 1600ish, as my example) 
> is
> a limit which would require entirely different approaches.
>
> Writing smaller is harder - people able to wordsmith will move to the
> prominence somewhat.
>
> Identifying the 5ish key facts (who, what, when, where, why, etc) for any
> topic is probably easier than figuring out how to write a NPOV 10,000 word
> article on a contentious issue.

It is a matter of organization that is hard. Lead sentences and paragraphs 
are important, though, because you are supposed to repeat them at the end of 
an essay, with other words, perhaps. In an article like [[prion]] or 
anything else that challenjez precepts, repeating the lead would be as 
contentious as trying to rewrite the lead. IOW, summaries and nutshells are 
rare in wikipedia, outside of what is explicitly an essay.
_______
I hav not tried one mix that I recommended, once: Sambuca and Root Beer.