From: David Mark on
On Jun 8, 6:42 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Andrew Poulos wrote:
> >> > At <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie> it claims that:
>
> >> > "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32
> >> > MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be
> >> > used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique
> >> > can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of
> >> > session variables  on the client side."
>
> >> Someone should edit that nonsense out of the article.
>
> > Why bother?
>
> Quality does not maintain itself.

In the case of Wikipedia, it is "maintained" by whomever has the most
free time.

>
> > Some clod will just put it back in a minute later.
>
> It is not too much of an effort to put an article one edited on one's watch
> list, and revert changes where and when necessary.

For a topic like JS, it will be an endless tug-of-war with jQuery
fanboys and the like.

> There's also a built-in
> way to discuss about (suggested) edits.

Yes, I've participated in a few such "discussions". Count me out.

>
> > Wikipedia's JS coverage is laughable.
>
> So it is certainly a good idea to try and improve it, as it has been done
> with many other topics before.

Why don't you start by adding a criticism section to jQuery's entry.
See how long it lasts. ;)

>
> > For example, the entry on jQuery reads like an infomercial.  I once
> > flagged it as such, but of course...
>
> Perhaps you chose the wrong way again.

Perhaps not. There's only one way to add that flag. I did so and it
was subsequently removed. You are free to try it yourself. And have
fun arguing with jQuery "programmers". Haven't you seen enough of
that here to know they don't listen to reason?