Brian J Mingus wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost
universally bad
impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much
money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many
Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a
Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost universally bad
impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much
money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many
Wikipedians the wrong
2009/11/13 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Well its tacky - if for no other reason that it presumes to represent
Wikipedia's eternal presence. Which is an interesting thought about
futurism, but one that needs an essay to link to. And the slogan is
in SHOUTCASE, which everybody knows is the
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211
references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat
WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!
It just sounds like a war cry or triumphal primal scream.
I'd rather the words help or support were in there.
The cry makes it sound like Wikipedia is not the least fragile. It
sounds like it doesn't need support.
___
WikiEN-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
The article you posted seemed to
take the epistemology as the basic lesson: if you tell me we know
that, what do you mean by know? It's a reasonable assumption that
being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can
be
