2009/12/15 Charles Matthews <[email protected]>:
> As grating as Andrew Keen but with added tendentious logic? Andrew Lih
> for people who still really don't get it? By the way, I know nothing
> about the Andrew Dalby book mentioned on the programme, but he talked
> quite reasonably (Wales isn't a philosopher while Sanger is, but you
> could argue that one), with the negative restricted to saying enWP is
> not going to get much better.
Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) is one of us, so at least knows what he's talking about!
It's not clear what "much better" means for en:wp. "Better" is
attainable, but what would being notably better than we are look like?
(I think the last big changes were (a) useful as a general
encyclopedia, which we weren't five years ago except in limited areas;
(ii) a culture of references, which was a b*gg*r to get started. By
the way, I created the {{unref}} template.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
