40
edits
Category talk:New: Difference between revisions
New, Schmew
(Add the FondedIn category) |
(New, Schmew) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
If you add the information when the wiki was founded, everybody will be able to remove new, when this predicate seems to be out-dated. Y good approach on WikiMedia-based wikis is to look at the history of the main page. Have a look at [[:Category:Wiki Age]]. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:58, 11 November 2009 (EST) | If you add the information when the wiki was founded, everybody will be able to remove new, when this predicate seems to be out-dated. Y good approach on WikiMedia-based wikis is to look at the history of the main page. Have a look at [[:Category:Wiki Age]]. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:58, 11 November 2009 (EST) | ||
== New, Schmew == | |||
Let's call the whole "new" thing off. Allow wiki creators/reps to indicate when the wiki first went online, and number of members, and let readers of WikiIndex decide for themselves the "status" of a wiki, because the word new is simply too subjective. Example: [http://www.dishiwiki.com My wiki], a recipe wiki, went online about two years ago, with just a hundred or so pages (recipes). And it was pretty awful. Well, not awful, but it was bare bones and somewhat naive. Slowly its content increased, features were added, and the layout was refined. Within a year, DishiWiki still had only about 20 members, but its members were proud and fond of it. Now, about two years later, it has over one thousand quality, well-edited recipes, tips and other cooking-centric material, but still only about 30 members, but who are fonder of it than ever. Bear in mind that DishiWiki has yet to "go public" through any type of marketing, SEO or even an email campaign. There is plenty of time for that. But I, and probably other members, still think of DishiWiki as new -- even at two years old. That's a good example of the subjectivity of newness. Perhaps those who protest loudly about newness are too close to be objective, or are merely being vain and consider the word new to be pejorative. So just remove "new" from any status or descriptor, and substitute more objective qualities such as a "live" date or "founded" date, and number of members or active members, etc. (Note: If you look at DishiWiki's Statistics page, you will see only 6 members. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, I '''very recently''' moved DishiWiki to a third hosting service, this time unable to export the corrupted database and having to merely export/import pages. A couple members instinctively re-created their accounts, but I have yet to contact the other members and let them know that they need to recreate their account. As I said, embarrassing, but stuff happens.) [[User:Dishiwiki|Dishiwiki]] 02:29, 12 December 2009 (EST) | |||