Andrew Dunbar wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
cookfire wrote:
>Timwi wrote:
>I wouldn't call it that. In fact I'm glad you
>would want to help us with this issue. It's
>something we have been asking for since the
>beginning of the English Wiktionary. It wasn't
>possible back then because of other priorities
>for the developers.
>It's a pity there is such vocal opposition to it
>now and I feel bad because I started by
>objecting. It is true that there might be even
>better ways of dealing with the issues, but I'm
>sure that flipping a switch is going to be a
>lot easier to accomplish than having to add
>functionality to the software to do it in those
>better ways.
>
>
There's no need to be short-sighted and settle for
quick fixes just because they are "a lot easier". I'm
sure that's not the kind of thinking employed by the
founders of the OED or Websters.
If Wiktionary is a good project, and I'm sure we all
believe it is, then it will survive long enough for
the
real fixes to come along. Cleaning up after the side-
effects of the quick fix and cleaning up again in the
future when a solid fix comes along will be a
pointless
drain on the time and patience of the contributors.
Also, going with the quick fix now will reduce our
chances of getting the developers to implement a solid
fix later on, because they will believe they had
already fixed the problem.
Polyglot
How a vote is phrased can make a difference to its
success. Putting three questions into one can be a
recipe for failure;
it gives opponents three separate issues that can be
used to oppose the whole thing.
Or, those you label "opponents" might have actually
agreed on the main point, and taken issue with what
else was going to happen because of the change.
Since this is what they have said I don't know why you
feel the need to put it the way you have.
It's a fact that the vote lumped three issues together. The fact
becomes that they voted no on all three points.
The opposition
was as much to the proposed script as
to de-capitalizing the first letter.
Or, the "opposition" was not opposed to
de-capitalizing
the first letter in a better way, and were much more
opposed to the script, depending on which member of
"the opposition", since each was an individual with a
different perspective.
My support is for the first letter de-capitalization. I have no
attachment to the script. It looks as though it would do the job, but
another method could work just as well.
I first
proposed freeing up the first letter on Dec.
18, 2002, and I'm still convinced that it's the best
way to go.
Unfortunately the principal opponent doesn't seem to
understand dictionaries.
It may be even more unfortunate that some feel the
need
to put down others rather than improve their arguments
or consider that other opinions might be valid and not
just the "contrary ignoramuses" who have been depicted
in the email I'm replying to now.
"Ignoramus" is your word.