i-node one

Sysloggin' one day at a time.

Meta

Pages

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

You are here: Home / Archives for 2004

Archives for 2004

Migrated from TikiWiki blog

By

Apparently I got the “it’s not pretty or fast enough” itch this weekend with respect to TikiWiki, in particular the blog section. Don’t get me wrong; I still love the Wiki part of it. It’s just that it was a bit of overkill for weblogging and it kinda got in the way of itself as a result. I wanted something with a more blog-centric existence, commensurate development, and presentation features/tools. That said, I wish WordPress would grok Wiki markup (I don’t mean the DoubleCaps bit — could actually care less about that). Kinda funky to learn but awfully handy for taking care of the “ugly” HTML/CSS work.

Just finished migrating all my blog entries, and their comments, a little while ago. Not exactly fun but it motivated me to hack a few things to make ’em easier to do (mostly the Quicktags) and look a little better (tables and CSS boxes). Still not perfect, but close enough for now.

Talk like a pirate day!

By

Captain Dave Barry strikes again! In case you didn’t know today is officially Talk Like A Pirate Day. So get to it!

The authoritative site: Ahoy!

Wikipedia

By

Made my first contribution to the Wikipedia last night/today by correcting, enhancing and adding to a couple of the pages: one about Yosemite, the other about National Parks which references Yosemite.

Yosemite National Park
National Park

Lots of stuff going around the blogosphere lately about the Wikipedia and how reliable it is (or isn’t, depending on your viewpoint). Probably in a year or two it’ll be at least as accurate as any recent treeware version for non-active entries, assuming publishers of said treeware don’t sue the Wiki out of existence because some people are copying verbatim from the text of their dead-tree version(s).

Personally, I’m not too worried about the Wiki’s authority because no one should rely on a single Internet-based source for accurate information; two or three sources, at least, should be considered good practice, just like with non-Internet-based resources. The people that do rely on Wikipedia for 100% authoritative info are probably the same people who rely on television or print media, both of which tend to get their info from the same one or two sources these days, for accurate information.