I guess this is kind of a wiki watershed moment: do we want the thrust of the wiki to be more bloggish, or more fakecyclopedia? Either one is totally valid. My vote is (unsurprising, given my Wikipedia contributions) for fakecyclopedia: it also gives us a chance to use the comments function as the "blogging" aspect. Thoughts?

Shirley said: "James--That was just pure meanness. I didn't even know Jenny had this picture. Beware--Have you seen the movie Monster-in-law? The picture below is more representative--okay, so it was 40 years ago! Is is how I feel inside."

that picture is adorable! & it had to be a matching set with irv's "maynard g. kanode" picture.

I guess I agree with you, but I'm not as much an uptight, rule-abiding wikipedia editor as you are.

Well, I mean, I don't think we need to be evil samurai about it (wait, I do think we should be evil samurais, though). Just as a general choice of tone, though, it is important. I'm considering a "What is this 'Wiki'?" page, probably linked on the sidebar.

I've been trying my best not to think about it at all, and trying to fight my natural Wiki instincts of numb earnestness. I just figured any rule-ifying, and the policing thereof, should probably best be informal. But I think a "What is this Wiki?" page would be nice.

That's why I created this: http://loveendingincommas.pbwiki.com/Wiki%20How

I figure you and James should handle it. Because I'm not really interested in doing it!

James--That was just pure meanness. I didn't even know Jenny had this picture. Beware--Have you seen the movie Monster-in-law? The picture below is more representative--okay, so it was 40 years ago! It is how I feel inside.

Me too. It was your first picture in the newspaper.

Everyone likes this picture. It's because you're a cute baby and your mom looks like Scarlett Johansson.

That is funny, I hadn't really noticed but she does.

Thank you David and James. James, that is a good way to get in good with your future m-i-l.