Mostly the former. I wanted our website to celebrate storytelling, and naming it after one of the oldest Japanese stories felt fitting. Plus, I did love Kaguya from the anime—so that's a bonus. :)
This was an experiment to start learning Svelte[1]. So the information shown, such as whether the year is in fact a perfect square, should update dynamically as you cross into 2025.
This is not true in my experience; you can make a wide range of possible edits without being reverted. Knowing which ones those are requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, not its politics. (There is politics, but it's not like every edit is a battle of minds.)
You'd need to read up on the notability guidelines and find a secondary source to figure whether you can make this edit stick. Though then again, there's often no "power user squatting the page" of any kind, so it might not be reverted even if you fail to adhere to this.
It's a good idea to limit it somewhere so you don't end up sending 10 MB every time it's fetched. The feed will be re-fetched to check for updates so the cost isn't paid just once.
It is paid only once since that 10 MiB gets cached by the reader. In future fetches the reader asks for entries newer than the date it last checked which means that the items already requested won't be sent again.
My understanding was that most feed endpoints just sent the whole thing back each time, or nothing (304 Not Modified, when conditional headers are included). This allows server and CDN caching of the response.
I care about the people in Nepal who don't want their government to restrict their access to the web. The people who want to be restricted in that way can exercise self-control.
It’s like smoking in public places. People who don’t want smoking in their faces can find non-smoker cafes! Once such cafe pops up, some people will complain that it’s messing with human rights to smoke.
WMF has had nothing to do with Wikia/Fandom for years (apparently they shared some hosting costs back in 2009). Jimmy Wales also hasn't exerted control over Wikipedia policy in a long time, and as of this year no longer even nominally has the right to overrule ArbCom.
So at the very least that's not actively motivating the continued state of the notability guidelines, though I don't know if it's possible the original motivation was as you suggest.
Yes, and that was what I myself thought as I scrolled past.
"Jimmy Wales also hasn't exerted control over Wikipedia policy in a long time, and as of this year no longer even nominally has the right to overrule ArbCom."
Except these two facts niggle.
He's on the board, and will always be the founder. He is SV aristocracy in a town where the money you earn is less important than the people you know and the things you have built. He will always have influence and it's naive to believe he wouldn't. So, it is not entirely accurate to say he has no control, just less control than he did. Is it too little control? Perhaps, perhaps not.
If I wanted to construct a set of policies that drove traffic to another site, I would make them quite like Wikipedia has now e.g. Wikipedia is not a gamers manual. Then I would target for deletion much of the nerd content, quite like now. This is quite a coincidence.
I'm not attached to this theory. Also, I don't like spreading negativity. But to me it seems at least somewhat plausible, and that possibility disturbs me a little.
reply