--- ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
Do you have a
source for that?
WTF?
When you make a sweeping generalised claim about how people actually behave and
perceieve things as if it were a fact, particularly as this applies to a particular
case which should be easily supported or not - its fair to ask for a citation.
In this case you were making some claim about how peoples eyeballs worked and that
this automatically invalidated everything else I said.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers.
Most of the
features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to
get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to
find the right article.
No, Im not. I also read lots, and in the course of reading I make little changes, and
sometimes more major ones. Im more of a gnome who looks at wiki from the point of view
of readability.
So I disagree that my suggestion is a bad one, just because people here say so, and
particularly because all of the arguments against seem to rest on this notion that 1)
its fine the way it is 2) its confusing 3) its against policy.
3 - DIS policy is borked and needs correcting. Peppering articles in the sciences with
hatnotes referencing pop culture (especially particular bits that in themselves dont
merit an article on their own) is called LINKSPAM and falls under SPAM and not DIS.
2 - People arent stupid, unless they are taught to act that way.
1 - It would probably be fine if every single case were handled by a disambiguation,
and
not left to discretion. If that was consistent, then we wouldnt see any "for the
b-side by the Spice Girls" links.
-sv.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com