On 11/12/2010 04:12, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
You weren't wrong about that, in
On 11 December 2010 10:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
You weren't wrong about that, in the sense that the twittersphere has
attracted (at leas some of) those mostly driven by instant updating.
Leaving an adequate but hardly overmanned reference utility that is
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we decide to call them) feel
no qualms
about
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis has always been more on dotting eyes and
crossing tees than improving
The problem with both FA and DYK is they tend to magnify the obscure rather
than the core subjects.
DYK is basically trivia because the only subject you can find to create a
new article on at this point will be obscure.
FA tends to concentrate on specialist articles - because it is the only
place
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that
On 11 December 2010 20:55, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
...if you favor a top-down authoritarian model in which nobody
outside a small ruling clique has any say in things.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
The problem will always be with us; by our basic nature, we cannot
compel people to work on anything except what they want to work on.
The success from the start has been driven by hobbyists, people coming
specifically to write on what interests them and nothing else; the
only way to get a wider
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 13:43, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
FA tends to concentrate on specialist articles - because it is the only
place a FA writer or two can be left alone to work on it without a hoard on
POV pushers and school kids.
It is a pity we can't find ways of getting
On 11 December 2010 21:41, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem will always be with us; by our basic nature, we cannot
compel people to work on anything except what they want to work on.
The success from the start has been driven by hobbyists, people coming
specifically to
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is, of course, a miserable failure. How can we duplicate this
failure?
Huh? Why would you want to duplicate a failure?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 11 December 2010 21:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for the volunteers on those wikis.
To a degree, we have that already - some of our
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
15 matches
Mail list logo
