I think the idea is to help the reader find what they're looking for as
quickly as possible. In some cases, the article they want is obvious; in
other cases, not so much. I suppose there's room for very common spelling
errors, or very unambiguous ones. But some of those disambig pages are
already pretty crowded, as is -- if it improves usability, by all means go
for it, but be careful that it *does* in fact improve usability.
Or that's how I figure it, anyway.
On 11/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The answer is apriori pertinent, and I think it
raises
greater questions: Is phonetic search a goal of
wikipedia? Should we think about possible wrong
ortographs of words and put them on wikipedia?
I frequently make misspellings into redirects ... particularly if I
made the error myself.
Most entries could probably do with a forest of redirects, because
they will help the reader find the article just by typing a plausible
name into the search box.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l