Is there not a record of what projects actually link to commons material? If not, why not
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I think of the problem as more of a systemic one, and I don't see a ready > way around it. I consider myself a moderately active user on commons, and > the thing is that Commons has no payoff. At Wikipedia, there can be the > satisfaction of an article well written, an obscure fact well sourced, &c. > The content is (usually) interesting and engaging and begging for your > participation. Commons, by contrast, is a forum for content that is > ALREADY > COMPLETE. It needs no participation, only handling. Commons editors are > more or less just shepherds and custodians, tagging, categorizing, > sourcing. I don't say this disparagingly. I myself hope to become a > Commons admin one day. But the difference in incentive, in intellectual > remuneration, is vast. > > FMF > -- Dennis C. During But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions ? -- Charles Darwin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
