Changes

Line 171: Line 171:     
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me.  I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission.  I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart.  How do others feel about it?  We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
 
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me.  I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission.  I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart.  How do others feel about it?  We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
 +
 +
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies.  As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust.  [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
    
==Invitation-only==
 
==Invitation-only==
3,209

edits