Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATD 489-524"
Squidwiggle (Talk | contribs) |
Squidwiggle (Talk | contribs) m (I successfully mistyped my own username.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Sorry man. I didn't understand you were on a deadline with having the book. Just do what you've gotta do, and I'll let you do it. I'm sure the blanks will get filled in. I guess I'm seeing this from the perspective of a visitor to the wiki who's not there as a contributor/editor, but someone looking for information. We have to remember that this wiki is a published, user-facing document -- now --, not something we're working on behind the scenes and then rolling out. From that perspective, it seems to me that a user seeing a bunch of question marks wouldn't see much value in visiting the wiki. The value is for collective commentary. So, as a user (and I assume this will be the highest volume of visitor), I think seeing content or, if no content, nothing at all, is better than seeing mostly entries with just question marks. Feel free to continue this discussion in a friendly way, and I will do the same. [[User:WikiAdmin|WikiAdmin]] 11:34, 20 December 2006 (PST) | ::Sorry man. I didn't understand you were on a deadline with having the book. Just do what you've gotta do, and I'll let you do it. I'm sure the blanks will get filled in. I guess I'm seeing this from the perspective of a visitor to the wiki who's not there as a contributor/editor, but someone looking for information. We have to remember that this wiki is a published, user-facing document -- now --, not something we're working on behind the scenes and then rolling out. From that perspective, it seems to me that a user seeing a bunch of question marks wouldn't see much value in visiting the wiki. The value is for collective commentary. So, as a user (and I assume this will be the highest volume of visitor), I think seeing content or, if no content, nothing at all, is better than seeing mostly entries with just question marks. Feel free to continue this discussion in a friendly way, and I will do the same. [[User:WikiAdmin|WikiAdmin]] 11:34, 20 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| − | Robot, I, and I'm sure most everyone else, appreciate the tremendous effort -- It's way the hell more than I've been willing to put into it. My question is, what's the standard for inclusion? I mean, couldn't someone just look up "tannery" (588) in a dictionary, or even infer from the suffix that it's a place where stuff gets tanned? Seems like if we just to wait till someone actually had something to say about a given phrase, then a higher percentage of useful, juicy stuff'd get in. In any event, you're clearly one of the heroes of the forum for all your contributions. Thanks a million times for each of those hundred hours & keep up the good work. [[User:Squidwiggle| | + | Robot, I, and I'm sure most everyone else, appreciate the tremendous effort -- It's way the hell more than I've been willing to put into it. My question is, what's the standard for inclusion? I mean, couldn't someone just look up "tannery" (588) in a dictionary, or even infer from the suffix that it's a place where stuff gets tanned? Seems like if we just to wait till someone actually had something to say about a given phrase, then a higher percentage of useful, juicy stuff'd get in. In any event, you're clearly one of the heroes of the forum for all your contributions. Thanks a million times for each of those hundred hours & keep up the good work. [[User:Squidwiggle|Squidwiggle]] 17:32, 20 December 2006 (CST) |
Latest revision as of 15:34, 20 December 2006
Many of these blanks are available on the alpha pages. Why not add the content while you're at it? Otherwise, you're just sloughing off the work on someone else. I guess blanks are a good incentiviser to get people involved, but I'd love to see some effort put into adding content rather than question marks. WikiAdmin (slightly grumpy!) 14:24, 19 December 2006 (PST)
- How about saying thanks for a hundred hours of painstaking labor, and not act like you deserve thousands more?--Robot 10:26, 20 December 2006 (PST) (deeply offended)
- Sorry man. I didn't understand you were on a deadline with having the book. Just do what you've gotta do, and I'll let you do it. I'm sure the blanks will get filled in. I guess I'm seeing this from the perspective of a visitor to the wiki who's not there as a contributor/editor, but someone looking for information. We have to remember that this wiki is a published, user-facing document -- now --, not something we're working on behind the scenes and then rolling out. From that perspective, it seems to me that a user seeing a bunch of question marks wouldn't see much value in visiting the wiki. The value is for collective commentary. So, as a user (and I assume this will be the highest volume of visitor), I think seeing content or, if no content, nothing at all, is better than seeing mostly entries with just question marks. Feel free to continue this discussion in a friendly way, and I will do the same. WikiAdmin 11:34, 20 December 2006 (PST)
Robot, I, and I'm sure most everyone else, appreciate the tremendous effort -- It's way the hell more than I've been willing to put into it. My question is, what's the standard for inclusion? I mean, couldn't someone just look up "tannery" (588) in a dictionary, or even infer from the suffix that it's a place where stuff gets tanned? Seems like if we just to wait till someone actually had something to say about a given phrase, then a higher percentage of useful, juicy stuff'd get in. In any event, you're clearly one of the heroes of the forum for all your contributions. Thanks a million times for each of those hundred hours & keep up the good work. Squidwiggle 17:32, 20 December 2006 (CST)
