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)