User:Jukeboksi/Blog/November2003: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(there are now 342 open links, this is quite reasonable for this stage, and none of them are defined or being used much differently than in Wikipedia, so, we need only one paragraph on each w/ outlink) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
25.11.2003 | |||
OK, good, after today's trolling, vandalizing, sysop uppitiness and etc., we have made good progress, and there are now exactly 342 open links in this [[R&D wiki]]. That is remarkably small for the complexity of this problem and what we are trying to change. Please review all 342 at this link: | OK, good, after today's trolling, vandalizing, sysop uppitiness and etc., we have made good progress, and there are now exactly 342 open links in this [[R&D wiki]]. That is remarkably small for the complexity of this problem and what we are trying to change. Please review all 342 at this link: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise. | If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise. | ||
I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add *some* value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they *keep readers here*. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. | I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add *some* value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they *keep readers here*. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people. | ||
But now, we need to establish our own slant on as many as 500 concepts that have to be well understood to make this [[healthy buying infrastructure]] [[self-funding]] and unstoppable even by [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] - ah I can spell that now! Making [[Richard Stallman]] happy with it is much harder I think. | |||
-------- | -------- | ||