Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 06, 2016, 02:01:50 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: How can we *share* Donationcoder.com better in 2010?  (Read 8826 times)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How can we *share* Donationcoder.com better in 2010?
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM »
If you take my experience of Wikipedia, I would recommend that you consider using a Google Knol rather than Wikipedia.

Anything you put up in Wikipedia  is potentially subject to the inconsistent whims and editorial control of a bunch of faceless, self-appointed "editors" whose expertise and qualifications are unknown and and thus of dubious credibility. This means that when they do make an editorial change, it could be (often is) wrong, as they are not necessarily qualified to judge correct material on any/all subjects.

I say this after the experience of putting quite a lot of effort into building, maintaining and contributing to several Wikipedia entries on different topics. After the experience of some separate moronic pieces of ignorant POV edits and sheer vandalism and/or spamming of some of the entries, I decided to migrate the most important entries to Google Knols and sadly abandoned the hopeless chore of trying to maintain the Wikipedia entries in a correct and pristine state. Knols are under your control and that of other authors to whom you give editorial read/write access. To date I have created 8 Knols, one of which won some kind of award (it was on Nolan's Model).

That is why I would recommend that you consider using a Google Knol rather than Wikipedia.

OldElmerFudd

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Bite-sized trouble
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How can we *share* Donationcoder.com better in 2010?
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2010, 02:21:45 AM »
Yea, definitely a diction mistake on my part. I should have phrased it like Perry does -- share and promote. There's a lot to brag about on this site, on what it has become, and the good it does year after year. So to get back to the original question:

- Tell your friends.
- Mention on other sites and forums where relevant.
- Be ready to recommend member software where you see a need.
- Blog, twit, and best of all, contribute here.

That's what I meant.

Exactly so. DC rises or falls by the efforts of everyone who contributes, no matter how small.
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code is a violent psychopath and knows where you live.

parkint

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2010
  • **
  • Posts: 119
  • It's bad luck to be superstitious
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How can we *share* Donationcoder.com better in 2010?
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2010, 08:38:20 AM »
In the current environment of the "social Internet", we all tend to 'promote' (e.g. discuss, blog about, IM, share links) the things we find interesting and exciting.
I agree with the sentiment that DC is unique, interesting, fun and exciting.
So, I propose that all who feel strongly about improving the exposure and image of DC simply commit to blog/tweet/blip/buzz about it on a regular basis.

The recent 'press' that apps like CircleDock & BootSnooze has gotten is surely a great boon for DC.