Interesting experience at wikipedia: I noticed that there is a link to
JackPark and to SamHunting, based on a reference to the book we edited
for Addison-Wesley. I went to the JackPark link. Nothing there, so I
added a paragraph. The instructions say explicitly not to use the topic
to promote any person. Gosh. I wouldn't do that!
When I went back to view it later, there was a warning message saying
the topic was scheduled for immediate deletion. I read the reasons for
that and added another paragraph. I went back a while later. It was gone
entirely. The instructions say that if you think it's not a candidate
AND you are not the original author, you can remove the <<delete>> tag.
By the time Sam got there, the article was gone.
So much for auto pilots.
Jack
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
* Stefan Lischke
|
| While searching through the information rich wikipedia sites i came
| across the topic map sites [1][2] and i was a bit disappointend how
| little information can be found there. I want to invite you all to
| a discussion, what content and examples could be added.
This is an encyclopedia, so I think it is OK that the articles are
relatively brief. However, I agree that the article could do with a
bit more content. Maybe putting in a bit about usage areas and some
examples in XTM syntax would do the trick?
|
| 
