David Gerard wrote:
> 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.
>
> ______
And a beautiful template it is David.
I feel the programme was {{unref}}'ed....
For example, it seemed to suggest that Jimbo was responsible as Editor
in Chief.
Gordon
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
