Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:58:27 -0400
Reply-To: "Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)" <rjf2@CDC.GOV>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)" <rjf2@CDC.GOV>
Subject: Re: OT: wikipedia or ...?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> From: Don Henderson
> I agree that a category called FAQ seems inconsistent with
> the concept of the wiki. You are correct that is what the
> Sasopedia part of the site was intended to address.
> So I guess my question for Ron is what is the intent of this
> category called FAQ.
thanx Don, for chiming in on this.
I had a note2self to contact you about this.
Howard and Charles Patridge had both mentioned 'taxonomy'
as part of our todo list.
The reason I created the Quick Link: FAQ
is one word: idiolect
depending on which dictionary I have at hand,
my main interpretation of this word is:
'the speech of an individual,
considered as a linguistic pattern
unique among speakers of their language or dialect.'
Who are the audience for sasComm wikipedia?
If the old-timers are talking to themselves,
using, as I noted above the language of the in-crowd,
we are eventuall/essentially wasting our time
because new-comers do not know the language of either
* computer science
* (sas) user/programmer/statistician community
If we make the effort to speak to newcomers using commonly accepted
then this signals our intent to meet their needs.
> Hmm. I thought that's what the SASopedia category was for.
My reason for putting FAQ in the Quick Links
is, hopefully, net-hip people will recognize that acronym
faster than our newly-minted word 'sasopedia'
Ron Fehd the Wikipedia!
or macro maven CDC Atlanta GA USA RJF2 at cdc dot gov