Date:         Tue, 1 May 2007 16:17:54 -0400
Reply-To:     Don Henderson <donaldjhenderson@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Comments:     RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
              was retained.
From:         Don Henderson <donaldjhenderson@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT: wikipedia or ...?
In-Reply-To:  <2C6B65AAC3623140922DE580669C456A0154A504@LTA3VS001.ees.hhs.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ron,

Also being of the Jurassic era of computing (hey, I remember when it faster
and easier to write a fortran program to merge files before passing them to
SAS), I understand and appreciate the issue of terminology that is
meaningful to users.

My concern with a category called FAQ is that it will be used instead and so
we would then have to figure out a way to bring them together. I would
rather have them not split apart to begin with.

So I have already done a few things:

- I created a page called FAQ and set it up so it automatically is
redirected to the Sasopedia page. So if someone types FAQ in the search box
and hits Go, they are bought to the Sasopedia page. Try it, you'll like it
:-).

- If the user hits Search instead of Go, they find a number of pages that
reference FAQ. I just updated the Sasopedia page to include the term so it
shows up in the Search results for FAQ. Feel free to tweak the working about
FAQ on the Sasopedia page: http://www.sascommunity.org/wiki/Sasopedia

Hopefully we will be able to address this (admittedly very important)
terminology issue more directly, I am hoping we can remove/delete the
Category:FAQ page.

Regards,
-donh

-----Original Message-----
From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Fehd,
Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:58 PM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT: wikipedia or ...?

> 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
* sas
* computer science
* (sas) user/programmer/statistician community

If we make the effort to speak to newcomers using commonly accepted
net-speak terms, then this signals our intent to meet their needs.

Howard:
> 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 KaiZen!
           or macro maven  CDC Atlanta GA USA RJF2 at cdc dot gov