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
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
2009/11/13 stevertigo :
> 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 quasi-official f
stevertigo wrote:
>
> ... Wikipedia is actually about destroying
> traditional knowledge more than it is about preserving it.
>
Phew, that would be my mistake down the years then: all this shovelling
traditional knowledge into WP gets me nowhere, because you never seem to
run out of the stuff
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 e
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
> described as "known"
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 m
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
