Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be technical - revision data held in an extra
field.
What you'd have is a list of named references, and the main text only
including ref name=WHATEVER / and references / tags. As the cursor
moves to
One immediate if minor advantage: old references don't get lost from the
text, when their first mention is removed.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be
2009/8/29 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
One immediate if minor advantage: old references don't get lost from the
text, when their first mention is removed.
There's a bot running - or, at least, was recently - that looks for
unmatched ref name=whatever/ comments and digs through the article
history to
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:06:19 -0400 (EST), gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24inkblot.html
How is Doctor Who involved in this? Were the inkblots retrieved by
way of the Tardis? :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail
FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be technical - revision data held in an extra
field.
IIRC Greg Maxwell mentioned something about this a couple years ago.
He acknowledged the issue of diminished
Nice signature... I found this in my spam box. :)
Yeah, anytime I see something in my junk email drawer, I assume it's
Will Johnson. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Soxred93 wrote:
Nice signature... I found this in my spam box. :)
-X!
On
The Welcome Wagon sought to bring them into the community
If it was bought back, would it survive?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Keegan Paul wrote:
The Welcoming committee is a central repository for welcoming new
users.
The Welcome Wagon sought to bring them into the community,
Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing
to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just
theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can
do better still :)
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM,
Is there an easy way to identify new editors? As in, new accounts are easy,
but many users start as IPs.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
The Welcome Wagon sought to bring them into the community
If it was bought back, would it survive?
Emily
Is there an easy way to identify new editors?
Good question. I'm interested in hearing the answer.
Emily
On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:40 PM, FT2 wrote:
Is there an easy way to identify new editors? As in, new accounts
are easy,
but many users start as IPs.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:32
FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing
to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just
theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can
do better still :)
Well,
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
In a message dated 8/29/2009 12:04:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
2009/8/29 wjhon...@aol.com:
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
Some celeb accounts are verified. Also, if the twitter
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
( 3b) (It's the infrastructure/databases/operatingsystems/browsers
themselves that facilitate this ease - not just wiki. Still, we
don't call ourselves the inter...pedia or the web..pedia for a
reason: Those domain names were already
Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
{{fact}}... WHOIS shows that interpedia.org was regisgtered 16-Jan-
2005, and webpedia.org on 20-Jul-2004, which are both after Wikipedia
was founded in 2001.
So I was wrong about those domain names
Folks,
The New York Times Bits blog has a small section on Wikimania.
Considering that
Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org
has
reached Top Five world status among Web sites – with more than 330 million
users – its annual Wikimania
From the excellent little book Keywords in Evolutionary Biology by
Evelyn Fox Keller Elisabeth Lloyd,
Adaptation, Current uses by Mary Jane West-Eberhard,
An 'adaptation' is a characteristic of an organism whose form is the
result of selection in a particular functional context Accordingly.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
19 matches
Mail list logo
