stevertigo wrote:
--- 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.
Actually it was not my claim. The post you were replying too was
made by someone else. The WTF was that, not being in an article common
sense and personal experienc should suffice for such an obvious statment.
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.
You are on this list, which means you are more involved in wikipedia
than most of the people who read it. Given the numbers (17th most
visited site for the month) I think it is reasonable to say that people
who have never edited a single article are the majority of readers.
Everyone else is just at an editor at a different stage of advancement.
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.
It has been a wile since I looked but my if memory serves all the
print encyclopedias do it the same way we currently do it. Only they
have fewer articles so they don't have the "embarrassment" that you seem
to be feeling.
SKL
