hello. tim here.
March 1, 2007
> I just wonder why you're signing your annotation entries? I think it's appropriate to sign articles, but I think it could start getting pretty cluttered if users all start up signing their individual entries to the annotations or the alpha index, in order to take credit.
Thanks very much for the note. You're quite right, the signatures make a lot of clutter. I've been signing mostly entries where I'm arguing with someone. That may not be needful, since it's so easy to discover the authorship of entries/revisions through the history pages. To be honest, I have thought about halfway through this issue: I use History to see who is responsible for other information, but until your message it didn't occur to me that everybody else can use History too. . . . [Rapid rethinking of policy] I'll take your message as a suggestion and cut down on the signatures.
Is it just me, or is AtD an order of magnitude denser than M&D in terms of encoding? The text keeps unfolding--with concrete information as an anchor (dates, etc.) forcing new ways of analyzing the narrative. It's very stimulating.
- Thanks Volver. Yes, I think the encoding is deep & wide. There are so many little themes that can be followed and connections that can be made. I'm currently exploring the Q-weapon and photography, but there are so many more, including things that seem to just sort of fade away, or seem to anyway, without necessarily resolving (but then maybe they do and we just don't see it yet. I thought the Q-weapon faded, but then realized that the crystal that powers it *might* be the same one that Merle and Roswell use in their photo-reanimation machine -- Pynchon never makes anything proof-positive. It will be amazing to see how the wiki evolves over the coming years. It's such a baby. WikiAdmin 10:03, 1 March 2007 (PST)