2009/1/23 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au:
now that it has been successfully tested elsewhere.
Where and what was capacity was the site? i know know about the
backlogs and such it would cause on somewhere huge like en.wiki even
with all the autoconfirmed users being reviewers or whatever the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
When I gave my occupation as encyclopedist on Blogger, I found another
had also, The Vital Encyclopedist. He blogs at
David Gerard wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment interesting:
===
That's exactly the problem, and one which the Britannica guy doesn't
get. I'm only minimally interested in what some expert at Britannica
thinks is the
Mark wrote: -Even if they did, I'd find Wikipedia more useful for
many things, such
as getting overviews of fields that have multiple competing viewpoints,
and pointers into the literature for further research. But I'd probably
read Britannica, too, whereas currently I don't really.-
Oh yeah,
The New York Times' Bits blog has an article on the Flagged Revisions
proposal:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/wikipedia-may-restrict-publics-ability-to-change-entries/
William King (Willking1979)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
I'm famous. :-) The article mentions The response was immediate and
deafening, with headlines like: 'Jimbo Wales, stop acting dictator.'
I created the headline mentioned.
The article is reasonably accurate, although The idea in a nutshell
is that only registered, reliable users would have the
2009/1/24 Thomas Larsen larsen.thoma...@gmail.com:
The article is reasonably accurate, although The idea in a nutshell
is that only registered, reliable users would have the right to have
their material immediately appear to the general public visiting
Wikipedia. Other contributors would be
On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sounds right to me, except they missed the bit where it's only going
to be activated on a subset of articles (at least at first).
Sort of... they do quote Wales as saying we will only be using it on
a subset of articles.
--Noah--
