Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Tagging of press articlesTagging of press articlesPosted Jan 31, 2008 20:48 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: The future of Linux: what it means for Wikipedia (apc) by sfeam Parent article: The future of Linux: what it means for Wikipedia (apc) It is interesting to me that this sort of confusion seems to be arising now. The "title (source)" convention for reporting on articles found elsewhere has been LWN's way since the beginning, and, for the first 9.99 years, nobody complained. If there's now a better way to headline such articles, we could certainly change, but the prospect makes me just a little nervous.
(Log in to post comments)
Tagging of press articles Posted Jan 31, 2008 21:11 UTC (Thu) by hathawsh (subscriber, #11289) [Link] Well, (apcmag.com) would be lot clearer. Just (apc) makes me think of a UPS and all the other TLAs I'm already swimming in. Also, the lead-in "apc covers an LCA talk..." does not warn the reader of just how much reporter opinion got mixed into that report. Something like "apcmag.com wrote an opinion piece regarding an LCA talk..." might serve better.
Tagging of press articles Posted Jan 31, 2008 21:12 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I don't think the problem is the title. It's the segue from apc's quote from you to his own editorializing. An inserted "[apc digresses to add]" after his quotation would make the transition clearer.
formatting nested quotes Posted Feb 1, 2008 16:40 UTC (Fri) by jabby (guest, #2648) [Link] I think another source of confusion is the use of double-quotes within double-quotes. Even if an original text uses double-quotes, if I'm quoting it within something else, I'll usually convert them to single quotes and use double-quotes for the outermost level. If there are quotes within quotes within quotes, I just keep alternating with each nested level.This approach increases the visual parseability, removes ambiguity, and avoids confusion should a typo result in the accidental omission of one quote mark. For this blurb, it would have looked like this instead: "Kernel release 2.6.24 came out on January 24, just before linux.conf.au began. Corbet estimates 2.6.25 will be finalised sometime around April. That rapid cycle represents an astonishing volume of new code. 'We are adding about 2000 lines of code to the kernel every single day of the year, without exception,' Corbet said. 'Nobody can really keep up with this [on their own] any more. It's an amazing process, and it seems to be working.' The project which those numbers immediately bring to mind is Wikipedia, which uses similar open source principles, along with an 'anyone can contribute' ethos." Maybe there's not a significant difference for other readers. Still, I think it helps.
Tagging of press articles Posted Jan 31, 2008 22:41 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] For what it is worth I'm one of the people requesting more noticeable markup, and I've been a reader for more or less all of those years. Maybe it's because my eyesight is weakening with age? Maybe it's because the mainstream press is getting more prolific and inane, or because LWN is becoming less selective about which mainstream press articles it references? Regards, Zooko
Tagging of press articles Posted Feb 2, 2008 12:36 UTC (Sat) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link] The attribution method has always seemed clear enough to me, and whether it's "apc" as their site style themselves or apcmag.com seems a triviality. The real isssue is "Is that article news?". The Grumpy Editor's talk is reported creatively with lots of Wikipedia comparisons (may be the journo uses it a lot for research?) and there's not the context of the actual talk, nor comment by the GE on whether the Wiki stuff was contained in the GE's talk. Perhaps the GE getting quoted on other sites and reported on is news, but pieces on general background around Linux conf in the media, may be would be better presented in a batch, so those interested in mass media buzz surrounding the conf can get a general impression. Especially if there's a link to the text of the talk, so reporting accuracy (versus creativeness) can be better judged.
|
|||||||||||