Coherent Policy
Bohgosity BumaskiL
news:5736a255-3b23-4ea2...@r16g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
(...)
> Ooo... a whole year. I think that conincides with your less than
> successful attempts at Wiki, but that is not the point.
(...)
Wikipedia is basically a doomed theory that you can get 150,000 people to
agree on anything. What happens is that some of the people who are right
drop out and write web pages, USENET articles, or newspaper articles that
are easier to read and more coherent than anything under the command of ten
people, two of them paid, one of them paid by Brittanica to attack useful
wikipedians -- with sujestions from five hundred. wiktionary is a bit
different. It is grounded in Latin and dictionaries that, except for
Webster's, are very slow to change. I will go there pretty soon. wikisophia
has very tricky language for getting what I want, and I am not sure that it
is worth the bother. The wiki commons is like a parody of USENET. I did some
nice work at wikihow, and...why bother when I can mirror it without
advertizing. I hav 250meg of web space on my account, and I am using less
than fifty meg of it. Strangely enough, Jimmy Wale's flagship product is
probably the least reliable, and perhaps the most destructive. Now, if he
appointed ONE PERSON to make policy coherent (or asserted his paternity of
the organization where it counts), then maybe he would not be damaging
anyone's reputation with rogue, sloppy, and lazy administrators that somehow
get together without plotting.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/