Brukar:Dittaeva/saksa
Frå Wikipedia – det frie oppslagsverket
Frå Wikipedia-l:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 21:56 -0400, Edward Z. Yang wrote: > I do not think that one sentence articles are acceptable, and the > current user guide suggests that redirects with possibilities should > stay redirects with possibilities, not one sentence articles. I wrote a lot of the guidelines, and I don't know what you're talking about. If you can point me to the specific guideline you're thinking of, I'll take a look (and maybe clarify it). Redirects should _only_ be used for things like alternate spellings, where the correspondence is exactly 1-to-1. If there's any explaining to do, there should be article text to do that explaining. If that makes a very short article, sobeit. The feature you suggest would add absolutely nothing to the user experience that can't already be done by simple article text, so why complicate things? -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:32:44 -0800 From: Brion Vibber <brion@pobox.com> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why do we not make it clear that Wikipedia is a work in progress? To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Message-ID: <4394CE1C.10706@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Why is there not a big, fat, clear warning at the top of every article that this is a work in progess, has not been formally reviewed, may contain factual inaccuracies or vandalism, and *should not* be used for reference without a very large grain of salt? I've gotten tired of having to remind people (even Wikipedians) that Wikipedia is still a draft, and that we have *ZERO* reviewed-and-vetted-for-the-public pages yet. We don't even have a review system in place yet. The "Disclaimer" on en.wikipedia.org, such as it is, isn't even *visible*. You have to scroll down to the *very bottom* to see a tiny "Disclaimers" link, and then follow *that*. The other languages, do they even all *have* disclaimer pages? Every time somebody discovers some bit of inaccurate or embarrassing something in an article and trumps it up in their blog/magazine/international TV news network, the hoo-hah is because we're seen as pretending to be a reliable or respectable information source. *WE ARE NOT SUCH YET* and we need to make sure that we're not seen to be claiming that. We're not just a bunch of geeks hacking together articles anymore; we get umpteen bajillion page views from random folks who probably don't have a clue what we're about, and we get waaaayy too much attention that's based on the impression that we're serving the public directly already. The recent affair is just one in a long series of small and large fusses because we're not being clear about what we are. Wikipedia is a draft, and drafts that are circulated in public need to be explicitly marked as such. </rant> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)