Talk:Research Wiki: Difference between revisions
m (...thus this is not a good name for a wiki) |
(no, don't do that - it's got to be "research" to SOMEONE's standards to get into Research Wiki; Also everything has "noise in it", so the name is not specific enough) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm going for [[Noise Wiki]] since '''who is eligible for the status of researcher''' will likely be [[faction]]ally contested, thus this is a bad name for a wiki | I'm going for [[Noise Wiki]] since '''who is eligible for the status of researcher''' will likely be [[faction]]ally contested, thus this is a bad name for a wiki | ||
:Um, though, aren't we trying to encourage stuff to be refined to the point where SOMEONE considers it "research"? [[Wikipedia]] articles are usually not good enough to be in an encyclopedia, but it's at least possible to say "that's not good enough to be here". One could ditch things from a [[Research Wiki]] for "not being researched", it's damn hard to ditch things that are just "noise". That name properly belongs to [[Development Wiki]] where everything is truly noise until it becomes code. | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 21 March 2004
I'm going for Noise Wiki since who is eligible for the status of researcher will likely be factionally contested, thus this is a bad name for a wiki
- Um, though, aren't we trying to encourage stuff to be refined to the point where SOMEONE considers it "research"? Wikipedia articles are usually not good enough to be in an encyclopedia, but it's at least possible to say "that's not good enough to be here". One could ditch things from a Research Wiki for "not being researched", it's damn hard to ditch things that are just "noise". That name properly belongs to Development Wiki where everything is truly noise until it becomes code.